(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Experiments on animals, are they justified? The case for vivisection"

Experiments on Animals. 
Are they Justified? 



THE CASE 
FOR 

VIVISECTION 

By 

Mr. STEPHEN PAGET, F.R.C.S. 

Hon. Secretary of the 
Research Defence Society. 



THE CASE 
AGAINST 

VIVISECTION 

By 

Dr. WALTER R. HADWEN, 

M.D., etc.. J. P.. 

Hon. Sec. of the British Union 
for the Abolition of Vivisection. 



A CONTROVERSY 



Published in the 

Columns of 
"The Standard" 



BETWEEN THE MEDICAL LEADERS OF THE 
VIVISECTION AND ANTI-VIVISECTION CRUSADES. 




- 4 



I REPUBLISHED BY I 

THE BRITISH UNION FOR 

[THE ABOLITION of vivisectionT 

32, CHARING CROSS, LONDON, S.W. 
Send Orders to Miss B. E. KIDD, Secretary. 



The British Union 
for the Abolition of Vivisection. 

Headquarters : 32, Chasing Cross, Whitehall, London, S.W 

— <y*°<?&— 

Foundress : FRANCES POWER COBBE. 



Hon. Secretary : 

: WALTER R. HADWEN, Esq., M.D., eta, J.P: 

Hon. Treasurer : 
The Rev. J. STRATTON, M.A. 

Secretary : 
Miss B. E. KIDD. 

Organising Secretary : Nurse CROSS. Hon. Solicitor : E. HEYS- JONES, Esq. 

Central Executive Committee : 

Chairman: Rev. R. D. Monbo, M.A. 
The Lady Kathleen Bushe. 



Miss Maroabet Bbadish. 
Madame Guebini. 
J. Fraseb Hewes, Esq. 
Miss E. Douglas Hume. 
E. Heys- Jones, Esq. 
Miss S. S. Monro. 
R. D. Pbankebd, Esq., M.D. 



Mrs. Roscoe. 

Alt. H. Rose, Esq. 

The Lady Rosmead. 

Rev. P. W. Sparling, M.A. 

Rev. J. Vebsohoyle, M.A. 

Harold Whiston, Esq. 

Miss A. P. Whtteley. 

Rev. J. S. Wood house, M.A. 



Bankers : 
Lloyds Bank, Limited, 16, St. James Street, London. S.W. 

"THE ABOLITIONIST." 

Monthly Organ of the British Union. 

containing 

High-class Articles on the Moral, Scientific and Historical Aspects 
of the Anti-Vivisection Question ; 

Replies to the Research Defence Society ; 

Racy Criticism of New Vlvisectional "Cures"; 
Chronicle of the Month's Work, &c. 

SHOULD BE READ BY ALL HUMANITARIANS. 

Specimen Copy sent post free to any address. 

YEARLY SUBSCRIPTION (%££*>) 2/6 per annum. 



Experiments on Animals. 
Are They Justified? 



THE CASE FOR VIVISECTION, 

BY 

Mr. STEPHEN PAGET, F.R.C.S., 

Hon. Sec. of the Research Defence Society. 



THE CASE AGAINST VIVISECTION. 



Dr. WALTER HADWEN, M.D., J.P., 

Hon. Sec. of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection. 



A CONTROVERSY 

(Published in the columns of "The Standard") 
BETWEEN 

The Medical Leaders of the Vivisection 
and Anti-Vivisection Crusades. 

With Additional Correspondencs between Dr. Hadwen and Dr. West, 
President of the Medical Society, London, the Editor of " The Lancet," 
and Dr. E. F. Bashford, Director of the Imperial Cancer Research Fund. 



Republished by 

The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, 

32, Charing Cross, London, S.W. 



\\'\j\i 



I 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2012 with funding from 
Duke University Libraries 



http://www.archive.org/details/experimentsonani01page 



Preface. 



On July 20, 1909, there appeared in The Standard a lengthy 
article by Mr. Stephen Paget, F.R.C.S., which has since been 
published as one of the leaflets of the Research Defence Society. 
Its general purport will be gathered from the correspondence 
which follows. 

It was accompanied by a leading article which practically 
recapitulated and corroborated its statements one by one, 
and in which the public were urged to " read and consider 
Mr. Paget's paper." The writer went on : — 

They will find that all the most valuable, the most precious, discoveries 
of modern medical research have been accomplished by this process [vivi- 
section]. In succinct and coldly precise, but none the less eloquent, terms 
Mr. Paget summarises some of the results which have been achieved for 
science and humanity by means of experiments on animals. 

After repeating and emphasizing Mr. Paget's contentions 
the writer reveals, perhaps to its fullest extent, the prejudice 
and misunderstanding with which he views the Anti-vivi- 
sectionists in the following sentences : — 

But there are still some who are obsessed by the idea of cruelty. Better, 
they say, that consumption should blight its hundreds and thousands of 
young lives in Great Britain ; better that the plague should gather its toll 
by the million in India ; better that typhoid should poison our cities, and 
malaria devastate vast fertile spaces of the globe — better all this than that 
the interesting guinea-pig and intellectual rabbit should be put to the torture. 

The writer, however, is of opinion that " they are not 
tortured," and by way of explaining what are the changes in 
the Act for which Mr. Paget is desirous, he concludes his 
special pleading as follows : — 

But the charge of cruelty is hardly worth serious confutation ; and it 
need only be noticed because it is still used as an argument against any 
further extension of the Act of 1875, or, rather, of the limitations under which 
it is administered. The time has come when these restrictions should be 
removed, or at least rendered more elastic. Science has carried on its most 
beneficent work in England under difficulties from which it should now be 
released, if this country is to hold its place in the ampler sphere of the new 
physiology and the latest phases of preventive medicine. 

About eight months after the appearance of Mr. Paget's 
article and its editorial " puff," the editor of The Standard 
approached Dr. Hadwen with the request that he would 
write a series of three articles giving " The Case against Vivi- 
section," the Research Defence Society being also asked to 
supply three giving " The Case for Vivisection." — — — 

1 A 



As the subject was a wide one, Dr. Hadwen, being requested 
to open the controversy, felt that he could not do better 
than select the instances of the supposed value of vivisection 
which had been supplied by Mr. Paget eight months previously, 
and thus furnish a belated reply to his misleading and grossly 
inaccurate article. 

The controversy began on January 31, 1910, with the 
following explanatory headnote by the editor : — 

In view of the great interest in vivisection, we have decided to open our 
columns to a discussion of the whole subject. Articles by two of the chief 
authorities for and agsinst experiments on living animals will be published 
daily. Below we give the views of one of the most distinguished opponents 
of vivisection, Mr. Walter R. Hadwen, M.D., hon. secretary of the British 
Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, and to-morrow we shall print the 
rejoinder of Mr. Stephen Paget, hon. secretary to the Research Defence 
►Soeiety. Other articles by these writers will be published from day to day. 

The editor's note which appeared at the head of Dr. Had- 
wen's third article explained that an agreement had been 
made that the two concluding articles should appear simul- 
taneously. Readers of The Standard were therefore naturally 
astonished when Mr. Paget was permitted to supply a long 
"reply" to the article which, according to the agreement, 
should have closed the controversy. 

Jt is to be regretted that the editor did not adhere to his 
original intention, which would have secured absolute equality 
between the contestants; but, by allowing the subject to be 
reopened, Mr. Paget was granted two extra articles and Dr. 
Hadwen only one. Jt is perhaps still more to be regretted 
that he allowed Mr. Paget to make a definite false charge 
against the British Union, and refused to admit a simple 
correction by the Secretary. 

To this reproduction of the debate we append two letters 
which were refused insertion by the editor. That of Dr. 
Hadwen was sent before any indication had been given that 
the side controversy with Dr. Bashford had been brought to a 
close, while Miss Kidd's letter simply rebuts Mr. Paget's 
false charge. 

To the hysterical and vituperative " Last Word " of Mr. 
Stephen Paget with which the editor closed the controversy, 
Dr. Hadwen has herewith supplied an incisive answer. 



British Union for Abolition of Vivisection. 

Life Membership, £5. 

Members, 10s. ; Associates, 2s. 6d. 

" XTbe BbOlitfOnfSt," 2s. 6d. per annum post free. 



[From " The Standard," January 31, 1910.] 

EXPERIMENTS ON 
ANIMALS. 



ARE THEY JUSTIFIED? 



The Case against Vivisection 

By WALTER R. HADWEN, M.D., J.P., 

Hon. Secretary, British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection. 



The late Miss Frances Power Cobbe, foundress of the 
Anti-vivisection movement in this country and of the Society 
which I represent, once remarked that " the least of all possible 
rights is to be spared the worst of all possible wrongs." On 
behalf of this claim for protection against legalised cruelty 
(which belongs to all sentient beings) I write this article. 

In what is called " Martin's Act " the rights of dumb animals 
are recognised. Under that Act thousands of cases of cruelty 
have been punished. No excuse is allowed the defendant 
if pain or suffering have been inflicted. He must pay the 
penalty of his wrong-doing. But an exception is made when 
the question of cruelty passes out of the domain of the coster- 
monger into that of the scientist. A special Act of Parliament 
protects the latter against an action at law. He can commit 
deeds the bare mention of which strikes horror into the minds 
of all possessed of humanitarian feeling ; but he is allowed 
the excuse which is not permitted to the costermonger, namely, 
that the benefit of humanity depends upon his work. And 
upon the basis of empty promises and still emptier results 
he has been allowed to go on with an ever-increasing toll 
of animal pain and suffering until the record of licensed and 
certificated cases of experiment has reached, according to the 
last official return, the total of over 88,000 in one year. This 
heavy " butcher's bill " does not include the many thousands 



of cases for which no licence is required when animals are slowly 
done to death in commercial establishments for the purpose 
of standardising drugs and manufacturing the sera and anti- 
toxins which constitute the craze of the fashionable up-to-date 
medicine man of the twentieth century. 

A Free Vivisection Table. 

It was urged in The Standard of July 20, 1909, by the hon. 
secretary of the Research Defence Society that this law should 
be extended, that its restrictions should be modified, and 
greater liberty than that already enjoyed should be permitted 
to licencees and certificate holders. His demand amounts 
practically to a claim for a free vivisection table. He prefers 
this claim upon the plea that the modern bacteriological 
theories associated with the names of Pasteur, Lister, and 
Koch were not known thirty years ago, when the present 
Aet was passed. He appears to be oblivious or unaware 
of the fact that the theories of Pasteur have never been proved, 
that the postulates of Koch, which were framed as a scientific 
basis for the theories to rest upon, have broken down in 
every case to which they have been applied, and that their 
practical application in the form of Listerism has had to 
be virtually given up by the whole surgical world. 

What more glaring instance of the failure to prove the 
microbic theory of disease could be found than that of the 
alleged goats' milk origin of Malta fever which I have recently 
exposed in the pages of The Contemporary Review ? And 
yet upon the basis of this Quixotic fallacy, which was hailed 
by the Research Defence Society as the greatest modern 
triumph of vivisection, the chief agricultural interest of 
Malta has been practically ruined, and the civil population 
driven almost into rebellion against the military government 
of the island. With the downfall of Koch's postulates comes 
the downfall of the germ theory which is built upon them, 
and the consequent failure to prove the specificity of the 
microbe in specific diseases brings into relief the absurdity 
and uselessness of the whole range of antitoxins and sera 
of modern medicine and of the theories which belong to them. 

The Bacteriological Method. 

As evidence, however, of the value and authenticity of the 
bacteriological method, on account of which Mr. Paget claims 
an extension of liberty to vivisectors, he places first and 
foremost in his article a long quotation from Sir John Simon — 
" that vehement prophet of science " who spoke, he says, 
with " projound significance " in 1876 of the researches of 
Dr. Klein concerning sheep-pox, thus :— rJ £ 



By these experiments on sheep it has been made quite clear that the 
contagium of sheep-pox is something of which the habits can be studied, 
as the habits of a fern or a moss can be studied. 

Professor Klein provided wood-cuts of this marvellous microbe 
of sheep-pox which were published in the report of the Medical 
Officer of the Privy Council. But, alas ! for " that vehement 
prophet of science " and his prophecy, and for Mr. Stephen 
Paget and his proofs, no less an authority than Mr. Stewart 
Stockman, chief veterinary officer of the Board of Agriculture 
and Fisheries, informed the Royal Vivisection Commission 
as recently as December 5, 1906 (Q. 2733) that " sheep-pox 
has been shown not to be due to these organisms." Can 
it be possible that the hon. secretary of the Research Defence 
Society is unaware of the fact that that report had to be 
withdrawn, and that to this day no one has yet identified 
the sheep-pox microbe or been able to put it on view ? 

Mr. Paget passes straight on to a " remarkable story " 
of M. Pasteur and his demonstration of the germ of puerperal 
fever — the streptococcus, which is supposed to be the origin 
of boils, abscesses, and suppurating wounds, &c; but he has 
given his own case away by admitting that " it has indeed 
been shown that suppuration may in exceptional conditions 
occur without micro-organisms." This fact goes to show 
that the dramatic incident of M. Pasteur rushing forward 
in the midst of a professor's lecture to draw a streptococcus 
on a blackboard has been robbed of all its point and effect. 
Indeed, M. Pasteur's memorable phrase, Tenez, void sa figure, 
would have sounded rather ludicrous had he been faced with 
Dr. George Stoker's experiment made a few years later, when 
large chronic ulcers on each instep of a patient were treated, 
the one with oxygen gas, the other with corrosive sublimate. 
This experiment, confirmed by Mr. Jonathan Hutchinson, 
and witnessed and narrated by Dr. Granville Bantock to 
the Royal Vivisection Commission (Q. 14723), proved that the 
ulcer on which the microbes had been killed by the corrosive 
sublimate refused to get well, whilst the one treated with 
oxygen, and which was swarming with the deadly germs, 
healed up ! Dr. Stoker found by subsequent observations 
that the only way to cure was to increase the vitality of the 
staphylococcus or streptococcus, as the case may be. The 
microbes were, apparently, a blessing instead of a curse. 

The Doctrine of Asepticism. 

But thirty years before this " remarkable story " of M. 
Pasteur occurred, Ignaz Semmelweis had, as Mr. Paget has 
frankly acknowledged, reduced the mortality of puerperal 
fever in the Maternity Department of the great General 



Hospital of Vienna from 12*24 per cent, to 127 by simple 
cleanliness. It is well known that his condemnation of the 
insanitary methods which produced the disease led to perse- 
cution by his medical colleagues ; they never rested until 
they had driven him from the hospital and from the city, 
and, his mind giving way in consequence, he died in a lunatic 
asylum. Mr. Paget declares that " his work was lost just 
for want of experiments on animals." This means, I presume, 
that, had he, like M. Pasteur, drawn a fictitious microbe 
on a blackboard, and declared it to be the origin of the disease 
he had exorcised, he might have saved himself from medical 
jealousy and despotism and covered himself with renown ! 
Possibly so. But Semmelweis will live when the theories 
of Pasteur have been buried in oblivion, for it is his doctrine 
of asepticism, and not that of the antisepticism of Pasteur 
and Lister, which to-day form the handmaid of the surgeon 
and the sheet-anchor of the obstetrician. 

Mr. Paget invites us to believe that physiology owes every- 
thing to experiments on animals. He ridicules the fact that 
Harvey declared that he was led to his discovery of the 
circulation of the blood by anatomy, and not by vivisection, 
on the ground that Harvey was an old man when he said 
this, and did not know what he was talking about ! 

" All that is known of the lymphatic system," Mr. Paget 
writes, "goes back to Asellius " ; but it can easily be demon- 
strated that vivisection was quite unnecessary to the discovery 
of these vessels, and Asellius, by these very experiments on 
animals, made egregious errors that were subsequently 
disproved. 

Mr. Paget declares that " all that is known about digestion 
goes back to the eighteenth century." This is particularly 
rough upon his friend, Professor Starling, who professes to 
have discovered a good deal, and M. Schiff and Professor 
Pawlow, who also claim to have achieved much in regard 
to this subject by means of vivisection. Had he said we have 
made no physiological advance since the days of Beaumont, 
in 1825-33, who laid the foundation of our knowledge by 
his experiments upon Alexis St. Martin (who had a perforated 
bullet wound leading into the stomach), he would have been 
nearer the mark. 

In the same random manner Mr. Paget declares that " all 
that is known of the production of glycogen in the liver and 
the chemical action of the pancreas goes back to experiments 
by Claude Bernard," and " all that we know " about the 
double nerves to Sir Charles Bell. He forgets that " all 
that is known " of the subject of glycogen amounts to nothing 
of practical value, and that the little we do know was gleaned 



9 

by Claude Bernard from an examination of the livers of 
recently dead human subjects ; whereas the secretion of 
the pancreas is so modified when obtained by operation on 
the living animal that all reliable chemical results have been 
secured solely by examination of the juice obtained from 
the dead bodies of well-fed dogs suddenly killed. As to the 
nervous system, Bell emphatically denied that his great 
discoveries were due to experiments on animals at all ; and, 
in spite of what Mr. Paget so confidently asserts concerning 
our debt to Claude Bernard's shocking cruelties for his 
researches on the vaso-motor nerves, the latter's claims' are 
widely disputed, and the results are still matters of controversy. 

Claims for Vivisection. 

To say that " all that is known of the functions of the 
thyroid gland ... is due to the removal of this gland 
from a few of the lower animals " is simply astounding. Mr. 
Paget knows perfectly well that seven years before a single 
monkey's thyroid had been experimentally removed, the 
functions of the gland had been demonstrated accidentally as 
the result of surgical operation upon eighteen human patients 
in Berne Hospital. 

When Mr. Paget says that " all present knowledge of the 
localisation of the functions of the brain " is built up on 
animal experiments, he is stating what is contrary to historical 
fact. Not only is his assertion emphatically denied by the 
great brain authority, Professor Charcot, but as recently 
as October 1 1 last, Dr. Samuel West, in his presidential address 
before the Medical Society of London, stated that : — ■ 

The localisation of function in the brain was largely based upon the 
observations of clinical observers, among whom Hughlings Jackson, a former 
president of this Society, holds the place of honour. Confirmed and extended 
in the laboratory, the conclusions he drew from observations in the wards 
form the basis of our present knowledge. 

The attempt upon the part of Mr. Paget and of vivisectors 
generally to minimise the amount of pain endured by their 
hapless victims is robbed of much of its point when we 
remember that animals cannot express their own feelings in 
articulate language ; and Mr. Paget's airy way of passing 
lightly over the revolting cruelties perpetrated in the course 
of many of the researches he approvingly refers to, and his 
comments upon the " comfortable " condition of the animals 
ekeing out their span in the cages of the doomed, is quite 
idyllic. I think it was Sidney Smith who once retorted upon 
a complaining bishop, that he would like to hear the dog's 
account of the matter. 



10 

The Cancer Experiments. 

Mr. Paget reverts again and again to the fact that 96| per 
cent, of all experiments on animals consist of inoculations. 
Fifty per cent, of this total comprise the useless and absurd 
cancer experiments, consisting of the transplantation of 
growths bearing no relation to human cancer through numerous 
generations of mice, the tumour sometimes reaching three 
times the body weight of the animal. Mr. Paget says : — 

The total pain is certainly no more than the total pain among an equal 
number of mice left to take their chance of starvation, traps, poison, and cats. 

But for scientists to be receiving large incomes for the 
last seven years in order to do the combined work of these four 
uncanny exterminators, with no other result than to delineate 
seventy different kinds of mouse tumour is sufficient to 
constitute a screaming farce, fit only for one of Gilbert and 
Sullivan's comic operas, were it not for the scandal connected 
with the whole business. 

Inoculations are among the cruellest of the vivisector's 
works. Dr. Thane, the chief Home Office inspector, told the 
Royal Commission : "In some cases, under Certificate A, the 
injection is followed by great pain and suffering." In his 
report for 1901 he says : — 

The experiment does not terminate with the injection. . . . The 
effect may be to set up a condition of disease, accompanied by pain, and 
the experiment continues until the animal recovers, or dies, or is killed. . . . 
In some cases, such as the injection of certain drugs, or of tetanus toxin, 
the effect produced is, without doubt, painful ; in tuberculosis and standardisa- 
tion of tubercular antitoxin, there is some difference of opinion among those 
who have had most experience as to whether the effects produced are attended 
by pain or not. 

The animal would probably be the best judge ! But as a candid 
vivisector, who makes no pretence to the sophistries of Mr. 
Stephen Paget, we can have no better example than Professor 
Pembrey, who thus delivered himself to the Royal Commission : 

I think painful experiments are necessary ; I mean, painful experiments 
as against experiments under anaesthetics. A commonsense view should 
be taken of this question, and pain must be admitted. I admit that I have 
done painful experiments, and I am not ashamed of it. They are absolutely 
necessary. 

" Pain, Part of Nature's Scheme." 

This delicately-constituted Professor went on to say that 
pain was part of the scheme of Nature, and if they gave pain 
enough they relieved the animal by causing it to faint ! 

One can imagine (confessed Professor Starling, in Q. 4019) that in a 
pathological laboratory a certain amount of suffering might be an essential 
part of the experiment, so that, although the animal was suffering, it would 
not be right to kill it. 



11 

These are English vivisectors ; there is no question of 
anaesthesia about all this ; indeed, the question of anaesthesia 
adds something like a touch of grotesque irony. Mr. Byrne, 
chief clerk at the Home Office, says (Q. 164) : — 

Attempts, mostly unsuccessful, were made to divide the experiments 
returned into painful and painless. That has now been given up, and the 
last return does not even profess to do so. 

Dr. Thane, the chief inspector, said (Q. 1335) : — 

The inspector never could distinguish exactly which experiments were 
painless and which were painful, and the experimenters and the observers 
themselves cannot distinguish in a very large number of cases. 

This points to a ghastly risk at least, which the helpless victims 
incur at the hands of the scientific priest. And the sentiments 
and feelings of such priests, who have command of the 
sacrificial altar, can be gauged by the cross-examination of 
Professor Starling as follows : — 

4160. — If there were no such things as anaesthetics, would you justify 
painful experiments on animals ? 

4161. — Yes ; . . . but vivisection would be limited to those men 
who had the moral courage to carry out those experiments. Such men 
would be worthy of admiration rather than of condemnation. 

In the face of such confessions and admissions by persons 
in authority, there can be no thought of regulating this system. 
Miss Frances Power Cobbe once said : "In practical politics 
we can draw no line between painless and painful vivisection." 
The officials I have quoted have shown that there is no line 
to draw. It is a cowardly and cursed practice, a deliberate 
dabbling in the blood and agony of sentient and sensitive 
fellow-creatures, without even the excuse of a beneficial result ; 
and there is no way of dealing with such a shameless evil 
except to demand its total abolition by law. 



DO YOU READ 
u 



The ABOLITIONIST"? 

It supplies answers to all the arguments 
raised by the Research Defence Society. 

2 6 per annum. 



SPECIMEN COPY FREE. 



Apply — 
British Union, 32, Charing Cross, London, S.W. 



12 



[From " The Standard;' February 1, 1910.] 

The Case for Vivisection. 

i. 



By STEPHEN PAGET, F.R.C.S., 

Hon. Secretary to the Research Defence Society. 



For the reader's convenience, I will number my answers to 
the statements in Dr. Hadwen's article, and will follow exactly 
his arrangement of the subject. 

1. He refers to the Act, but does not refer to the many 
conditions and restrictions, not contained in the text of the 
Act, which are imposed by the Home Office on licences and 
certificates ; nor does he refer to the careful inquiry and 
consultation over the granting of them. We have, on this 
point, the evidence before the Royal Commission of Mr. 
Byrne, principal clerk in the Home Office : — 

Q. 208.- — Then may I take it that every licence which is applied for has 
to pass not only through three sets of eyes, but four sets of authorities, before 
it is granted — namely, first, one of the authorities mentioned in the Act, 
the President of the Royal College of Physicians, or the President of the 
Royal College of Surgeons ? — A. — Yes. 

Q. 209. — Then it has to be sent by the Home Office to the Society of 
Research (i.e., the Association for the Advancement of Medicine by Reseach) ? 
—A.— Yes. 

Q. 210. — Then it has to go to the inspector ? — A. — Yes. 

Q. 211. — And then, again, it has to run the gauntlet of either two or three 
officials of the Home Office ? — A. — Yes. 

Q. 212. — And the same with a certificate ? — A. — That is so. 

2. Dr. Hadwen gives the total number (88,634) of experi- 
ments made during 1908 in Great Britain. No fewer than 
85,783 of them, or 97 per cent., were inoculations, or of the 
nature of inoculations, involving no sort or kind of operation. 
The vast majoritj^ of these inoculations were made on mice 
or guinea-pigs. And no fewer than 12,500 of them were 
nothing more than the exposing of the ova and young of fish 
to the influence of effluents in various stages of purification 
and dilution. These 12,500 experiments were made for the 
Royal Commission on Sewage. 

3. He says that animals are " slowly done to death " over 
the making of antitoxins. I saw lately some horses which 
had been yielding antitoxin for five or six years. They were 



' 13 

sleek, well-fed, well-stabled, regularly exercised, and perfectly 
comfortable ; they were far better off than the average horse 
in the streets. 

4. He says that, in my article in The Standard, July 28, I 
demanded greater liberty for licensees, and, practically, the 
abolition of all restriction. I did nothing of the sort. I only 
pointed out that the text of the Act says not a word about 
inoculations, and needs one or two changes, after these 
thirty-five years, to bring it up to the methods and the objects 
of the work that is done to-day. 

Pasteur's Theories. 

5. " The theories of Pasteur have never been proved." 
The theories of Pasteur are concerned with the molecular 
asymmetry of certain crystals, the nature of fermentative 
changes in wines, beers, and spirits, the relation of putre- 
faction to bacteria, the causes of pebrine and flacherie among 
silkworms, the attenuation of virus, the intensifying of virus, 
the standardising of virus, and the principles of immunity. 
Which of these theories has not been proved ? 

6. " The postulates of Koch have broken down in every 
case to which they have been applied." The postulates of 
Koch are more than a quarter of a century old ; and, with 
the advance of science, the fourth postulate has become 
unnecessary. But take fowl-cholera, swine-fever, anthrax, 
glanders, tubercle, pyaemia, puerperal fever, and bubonic 
plague. Over which of them have Koch's postulates broken 
down ? 

7. " Listerism has had to be virtually given up by the whole 
surgical world." But, all the world over, not only is the anti- 
septic system in daily use, but along with it, the aseptic 
system. Both of them alike are the direct outcome of Lister's 
work. The whole use of heat, to make instruments and 
dressings aseptic, comes of Lister's and Pasteur's work, and 
before their time was not practised. 

8. Dr. Hadwen says that he has " exposed " Sir David 
Bruce' s work on Malta fever. I must refer the reader here to 
Fleet-Surgeon Hardie's article in The Contemporary Review 
last October, and to The Standard, August 31 and September 6. 
Also to Mr. Haldane's statement in the House of Commons 
a few weeks ago (November 25). He was asked by Mr. Arnold 
Lupton to remove the prohibition against the use of goat's 
milk by the garrison, and he answered : — 

During recent years improvements have been steadily carried out in re- 
lation to the drainage of the harbours in Malta. In 1906 a considerable 
number of the troops were removed from St. Elmo to the new barracks. 
The Mediterranean Fever Commission, however, obtained no evidence con- 



14 

necting the condition of the harbours with the prevalence of Mediterranean 
fever among the troops. Since the prohibition of the use of goat's milk in 
barracks and hospitals, Mediterranean fever has practically disappeared 
from amongst the troops. The evidence given in the reports of the Royal 
Society's Mediterranean Fever Commission, connecting goat's milk and 
Mediterranean fever, is so strong, and the improvement in the health of the 
troops since the use of goat's milk has been given up is so marked, that no 
responsible Minister who did not wish to be regarded as weak and incom- 
petent would venture to remove the prohibition for the use of goat's milk 
by the garrison. 

Dr. Hadwen adds, that, as a result of Brace's work, " the civil 
population has been driven almost into rebellion against the 
military government of the island." But, as a matter of 
fact, it is the civil authorities in Malta who are now warning 
the Maltese against goat's milk. 

The Germ Theory. 

9. He speaks of " the downfall of the germ theory." Take 
a pure culture of the germs of tetanus, typhoid fever, tubercle, 
or plague. A pure culture is just a streak of this or that 
kind of germ, in a test-tube, growing on pure sterilised gelatine 
or some such nutrient material. Would Dr. Hadwen consent, 
or would he not, to have a needleful of one of these pure 
cultures put under his skin ? 

10. He speaks of the " absurdity and uselessness of the 
whole range of antitoxins and sera." But take the case of 
epidemic meningitis — " spotted fever." Before the serum 
treatment of this terrible disease, the mortality ranged from 
68*4 per cent. (Glasgow) to 80*5 per cent. (Edinburgh Free 
Hospital). With the serum treatment, the mortality ranged 
from 18- 1 per cent. (John Hopkins Hospital, Boston) to 
42-7 (Municipal Hospital, Philadelphia). In the Edinburgh 
Fever Hospital, the serum treatment brought down the 
mortality from 80*5 to 42- 3 ; in Belfast Fever Hospitals, 
from 72-3 to 29' 6. There was no change in the type of the 
disease — no selection of cases. " My own experience," says 
Dr. Gardner Robb, of Belfast, " has been that of 275 cases 
under my care in hospital before the use of the serum was 
commenced, 72*3 per cent, died ; while of the 98 cases treated 
with the serum 29" 6 per cent. died. No selection of cases was 
made ; every case sent into hospital since September, 1907, 
has been treated in this way. No change in the severity of 
the attacks was observed ; in the three months immediately 
before the serum arrived with us 45 cases came under treat- 
ment, of whom 37, or 82 per cent., died ; and, in the first 
four months after we began its use in hospital 30 cases were 
treated, of whom eight died, a mortality of 26 - 6 per cent. ; 
while, of the 34 cases occurring in the city in the same period. 






15 

but not sent into hospital, and not treated with the serum, 
over 80 per cent, died." 

11. Dr. Hadwen puts a wrong construction on what I said 
of Sir John Simon's " prophecy " before the 1875 Royal 
Commission. He is right in saying that the microphyte 
described thirty-five years ago as the cause of sheep-pox, has 
been found not to be the cause of that disease ; none the less, 
what Sir John Simon told the Commissioners was a prophecy, 
and one of profound significance. It was two years before 
Koch's work on Weigert's method of staining bacteria with 
aniline dyes ; it was six years before his work on the use of 
transparent solid media for pure culture ; yet Simon pro- 
phesied with absolute truth, saying : " We look forward to 
opportunities of thus studying the contagium outside the 
body which it infects." I quoted these words ; Dr. Hadwen 
has left them out ; they are a fine prophecy. 

12. Pasteur, in 1878, drew on the blackboard, at the French 
Academy of Medicine, the germ of puerperal fever. It is 
true that suppuration may, in exceptional cases, occur without 
micro-organisms ; but suppuration is not puerperal fever. 
It is also true that some kinds of germs may Have a stimulating 
effect on a chronic indolent ulcer of the leg ; but an ulcer of 
the leg is not puerperal fever, nor is the vitality of germs the 
same thing as their virulency. 

13. Pasteur did not only draw germs on blackboards ; he 
grew them in test-tubes, and proved their specific action on 
small animals. He was able to show to his opponents, in a 
drop of blood, or in a test-tube, or in the tissues of an inocu- 
lated guinea pig, the germ of this or that disease, the actual 
cause, the thing itself. Semmelweis could not do that. There- 
fore his work was lost. The date of his work is 1847-50. 
The mortality from puerperal fever in the Paris Maternity 
Hospital in April-May, 1856, was 64 deaths out of 347 confine- 
ments ; in 1864 it was 310 deaths out of 1,350 confinements ; 
in January-February, 1866, it was 28 deaths out of 103 con- 
finements. And, of course, what happened in Paris was 
happening in other countries. 

14. No doctrine of " asepticism," apart from the " anti- 
septicism of Pasteur and Lister," forms to-day either the hand- 
maid of the surgeon or the sheet-anchor of the obstetrician. 

15. I never said, or thought, that Harvey, in his old age, 
did not know what he was talking about ; and Harvey never 
said what Dr. Hadwen says that he said. The arrangement 
of the valves of the veins " invited him to imagine " the course 
of the blood ; and experiments on animals helped him to dis- 
cover what anatomy had only invited him to imagine. " At 
last," he says in his book, " having daily used greater dis- 



16 

quisition and diligence, by frequent examination of many 
and various living animals — multa frequenter et varia animalia 
viva introspiciendo — and many observations put together, I 
came to believe that I had succeeded, and had escaped and 
got out of this labyrinth, and therewith had discovered what 
I desired — the movement and use of the heart and the arteries." 

The Discovery of Lacteals. 

16. Asellius, in the course of an experiment on a living 
animal, July 23, 1622, discovered the lacteals. These little 
vessels are empty and invisible after death. He pricked one 
of them and found that they were not nerves but vessels. 
" At which sight," he says, " when I could not restrain my joy, 
turning to those who were there, I said ' I have found it,' like 
Archimedes." He did not trace them to the thoracic duct ; 
but we cannot call that an " egregious blunder." It was 
Pecquet, thirty years later, who discovered, by another 
experiment on a living animal, the thoracic duct. The 
anatomists had discovered neither the lacteals nor the duct. 

17. Reaumur and Spallanzani, in the eighteenth century, 
discovered, by experiments on animals, the nature and action 
of the gastric juice. All that is known about digestion goes 
back to these experiments. Beaumont, in his book on Alexis 
St. Martin's case, emphasizes this fact. " I make no claim," 
he says, " to originality in my opinions, as it respects the 
existence and operation of the gastric juice. My experiments 
confirm the doctrines (with same modifications) taught by 
Spallanzani and many of the most enlightened physiological 
writers." 

18. Claude Bernard discovered glycogen not by post mortem 
observation on man, but by experiments on animals. He 
kept two dogs on different diets — one with sugar, the other 
without it — then killed them during digestion, and tested 
the blood in the veins from the liver. " What was my sur- 
prise," he says, " when I found a considerable quantity of 
sugar in the hepatic veins of the dog that had been fed on 
meat only, and had been kept for eight days without sugar, 
just as I found it in the other dog." " Nouvelle Fonction du 
Foie," Paris, 1853. 

19. In his study of the pancreas, Bernard went back to De 
Graaf's use of an artificial fistula. " Bernard at one stroke," 
says Sir Michael Foster, " made clear the threefold action of 
pancreatic juice." His facts have never been denied ; they 
are the foundation of all later study of the pancreatic juice, 
including the study of the " internal secretion " of the gland. 

20. Bell emphatically says in his " Idea of a New Anatomy 
of the Brain" (London, 1811) that his great discoveries were 



17 

due to experiments on animals. " I thought that I had an 
opportunity of putting my opinion to the test of experiment, 
. an opportunity of proving. . . . Such were my 
reasons for concluding. ... I now saw the meaning ; 
... it now became obvious." That is how he wrote in 
1811, when his experiments were fresh in his mind. He wrote 
otherwise in 1823 and 1830. 

A Famous Experiment. 

21. Claude Bernard's discovery of the vaso-motor action 
of nerves has never been disputed ; nor was there any " shock- 
ing cruelty " in his famous experiment on the rabbit's ear. 
He divided the non-sensory nerve going to the ear, " and 
immediately," he says, " the experiment gave the he direct 
to my theory." That was the beginning of all knowledge 
of the vaso-motor system. 

22. Dr. Hadwen leaves out my qualifying words, " in great 
measure," in what he says that I said about the thyroid gland. 
Still, I do not know that I need have put them in. The cases 
at Berne did not demonstrate the function of the normal gland ; 
and the report of the Commission of the Clinical Society, five 
years later (1888), contained Horsley's proofs, obtained by 
experiment on animals, of the influences of the normal gland 
on the general nutrition of the body. Later still, 1889-90, 
came the discovery of the transplantation of thyroid tissue, 
and in 1891 the discovery of the use of thyroid extract in cases 
of myxcedema and sporadic cretinism. 

23. I am sorry that, in the narrow limits of my article, I did 
not speak of the clinical observations of Broca, Charcot, and 
Hughlings Jackson on cerebral localisation. They were of 
the very highest importance ; but they neither did, nor could, 
accomplish the work of Fritsch, Hitzig, Ferrier, and their 
followers. Charcot, certainly, would have rejoiced to see 
the results of that work. His criticism, to which Dr. Hadwen 
refers, is, I think, about thirty-five years old. 

24. The fact that it is possible to immunise mice against 
mouse cancer, and the non-transmittal of this immunity, 
the production of " hypersensitiveness " to the disease, the 
alternation of positive and negative phases of the growth of the 
disease, and the replacement of epithelioma-cells by sarcoma- 
cells — surely, it is hardly accurate to call these observations 
useless, absurd, a screaming farce, a scandal, and a disgraceful 
business. 

25. I come now to Dr. Hadwen's account of inoculation as 
" among the cruellest of the vivisector's works." I do not 
say that all inoculations or injections are absolutely painless. 
But I do say, most emphatically, that I have visited, in the 



18 



last few months, the Lister Institute, the Cancer Research 
Laboratories on the Embankment, the Heme Hill Laboratories, 
and the Pasteur Institute ; that I have seen at these places 
I know not how many inoculated animals ; and that I did not 
see one that was in pain. I saw five or six rats or guinea- 
pigs that looked ill, but showed no sign of suffering ; and I 
saw five or six mice that were hampered in their movements 
by large tumours under the skin, but showed no sign of suffer- 
ing. 

26. Against Dr. Hadwen's phrase, " a deliberate dabbling in 
blood and agony," we have Professor Starling's evidence before 
the Royal Commission : " Though I have been engaged in the 
experimental pursuit of physiology for the last seventeen 
years, on no occasion have I ever seen pain inflicted in any 
experiment on a dog or cat, or, I might add, a rabbit, in a 
physiological laboratory in this country." 






" HEAR BOTH SIDES." 

The British Union for Abolition 
of Vivisection 

PUBLISHES . . 

COMPLETE CONTROVERSIES AND 
REPORTS OF DEBATES. 



They may be had on application to 

The Secretary, B.U.A.V., 

32, Charing Cross, 

London, S.W. 

SEE LIST ON COVER. 



19 



[From " The Standard;' February 2, 1910.] 

The Case against Vivisection. 

ii. 

By WALTER R. HADWEN, M.D., J.P. 



I am quite prepared to follow Mr. Paget's plan of numbering his 
rejoinders, which I will deal with seriatim. 

1. Mr. Paget carefully avoids all reference to the legislative 
inconsistency which exists between the punishable offence of the 
costermonger upon the one hand, and the legalised cruelty of 
the vivisector upon the other, to which I drew attention ; he 
prefers to enlarge upon the " careful inquiry " which he alleges 
is officially instituted before a vivisector is granted a licence or 
certificate. But my contention as to the latter is that the 
authorities under whose eyes the licences and certificates are 
granted are not unbiassed. Who are they ? (1) The heads of 
one of the medical colleges. These gentlemen, if not themselves 
licensed vivisectors, are usually pro-vivisectionists. Their 
signature is a pure formality. (2) The Association for the 
Advancement of Medicine by Research. This is the chief court 
of reference. It is a society of vivisectors, which was instituted 
(as explained at its inception by one of its committee in The 
British Medical Journal of April 22, 1882) to " bring effectual 
pressure upon officials " and " to secure the Act being harm- 
lessly administered." The British Medical Journal of October 
31, 1908, said that it " existed for the guidance of the Home 
Office." (3) The Inspector : We have only too good reason to 
understand Professor Lawson Tait's last warning that, above 
all things, Anti-vivisectionists should " combine to abolish the 
medical inspector." He has ever proved himself to be the 
friend of the vivisector. (4) The Home Secretary : He has in- 
variably adopted the line followed by Sir William Harcourt, 
who, when in that position, informed the House of Commons 
that feeling himself " unfit " for the " responsibility " of seeing 
that the Act was carried out with discrimination and care, he 
had invited the Association of Vivisectors to undertake it for 
him ! " Red-tapeism " is generally useless, here it is also 
dangerous. 

2. Mr. Paget again evades a plain issue. I have already 
stated in my article that the majority of the vivisections of to- 



20 

day consist of inoculations, and I have also proved from the 
vivisectors' own evidence that these methods are fraught with 
ghastly results, which Mr. Paget apparently finds it convenient 
to ignore. 

The Animal's Point of View. 

3. Mr. Paget has seen some show horses in an unnamed 
laboratory, and concludes that the repeated injection of morbid 
matter into an animal's body, by which a condition of fever is 
set up, with rapid breathing, shivering, probably sweating and 
diarrhoea, swellings, etc. — in fact, all the symptoms of blood 
poisoning, until it reacts no longer, and the poor creature is 
declared to be " immune " ; followed by a vein in its neck being 
periodically opened and a quart or two of blood drawn there- 
from, renders it " far better off than the average horse in the 
streets " ! It might be well to know what the horse thinks 
about it. The " horse in the street " would, at least, be pro- 
tected by Martin's Act. 

4. Mr. Paget denies that he wants greater liberty for vivi- 
section ; he only wants " changes " in the Act that will " bring 
it up to the methods and objects of the work that is done to- 
day " ! I have quoted some of the " methods and objects " 
from the lips of Professor Pembrey and others. Let me ask Mr. 
Paget, Does he agree with the sentiments of Professor Pem- 
brey, for instance 1 Does he wish such men to have greater 
licence, or is he prepared for legislation that will put a stop to 
the atrocities they glory in % 

5. In saying that " the theories of Pasteur had never been 
proved " I referred, of course, to those relating to the preventive 
treatment of disease, as Mr. Paget knows perfectly well. 
Pasteur was a chemist. His work in that direction I am not 
discussing. 

6. Koch's postulates have broken down in all the cases 
quoted by Mr. Paget. To say that " with the advance of 
science the fourth postulate [whichever that is] has become 
unnecessary " is a highly ingenious way of saying it has been 
either unproved or disproved ! Germs are found apart from 
the disease they are supposed to originate ; they are not found 
in undoubted cases of the disease, and the illness set up in 
inoculated animals rarely bears any resemblance to the disease 
in the human subject. The editor of The Lancet stated in a 
leading article in March last : — 

" It must be acknowledged that all these postulates are 
complied with very rarely, indeed, if ever. . . . The 
question naturally arises : Are these so-called causal organisms 
truly causal, or are they only secondary invaders ? " 

7. Asepsis — or simple cleanliness— has superseded antisepsis 



2J 

— or the use of germicides. The President of the Royal College 
of Surgeons, asked by the Royal Commission whether this were 
the case, replied significantly, " I hope so." It is certainly 
amusing to witness Mr. Paget's efforts to ^confuse the two 
systems, so that Lister and vivisection might get the credit of 
both. Does he expect us to believe that vivisection was 
necessary to the discovery that hot water cleanses more 
thoroughly than cold ? 

The Goat's Milk Theory. 

8. When Mr. Paget refers to Fleet-Surgeon Hardie's reply 
to me re Malta fever, in the October number of The Contem- 
porary Review, he might have had the courtesy to state that I 
answered every assertion he made in the issue of the following 
month. Not a single fact or argument or statistic I have 
adduced concerning the goat's milk fallacy has yet been con- 
troverted. Mr. Haldane's official reply to a question in the 
House of Commons contained no argument ; he frankly ad- 
mitted that the decline of Malta fever synchronised with 
sanitary and administrative changes, and, for the rest, he relied 
on the conclusions of the Mediterranean Fever Commission, 
which I dispute. I am quite aware that the civil authorities are 
warning the Maltese against goat's milk, but the Maltese smile 
and go on drinking it, and are none the worse for doing so. 

9. No, J certainly should not consent to the injection of any 
so-called " pure culture of germs," or of any other similar 
abomination, into my blood. But I would remind Mr. Paget 
that the Grocers' Company long ago offered £1,000 for the 
discovery of a method of cultivating the reputed germ of 
vaccinia outside the body, but no one has hitherto claimed the 
award ; and yet both vaccinia and variola can be inoculated, 
although no specific germ has been found in connection with 
either. Perhaps Mr. Paget can explain this ? 

New Serum. 

10. Mr. Paget, instead of quoting some of the antitoxins of 
" repute," helplessly turns to the very newest craze of Flexner's 
serum for epidemic meningitis or spotted fever, and quotes the 
experience of Dr. Robb, of Belfast. Why has he dropped 
Flexner's own statistics given in the pamphlet published by 
the Research Defence Society ? Flexner startled the profession 
with his miracles. Upon turning to his report, however, I find 
that " all cases that died in less than twenty-four hours after 
the first dose of the serum were excluded from the tabulations." 
That is a queer way of compiling statistics — to exclude all the 
worst cases ! Mr. Paget would now like us to bow the knee to 
one of Flexner's pupils instead ! I prefer not to Jump to con- 



22 ; 

elusions quite so hastily as Mr. Paget. I remember how Mr. 
Paget hailed the marvellous yellow fever serum statistics with 
unbounded confidence in the first edition of " Experiments on 
Animals," which he had to withdraw in his second ! We will 
wait a bit. The whole shore of serum-therapy is strewn with 
the wrecks of exploded theories. 

11. Sir John Simon's " prophecy " was not a difficult feat, 
but it was admittedly based upon a false belief. 

12. Mr. Paget's " wriggles " over puerperal fever are very 
amusing, and, after vainly endeavouring to escape a straight 
issue, he finally declares that "the vitality of germs is not the 
same thing as their virulency " ! In that sentence he gives 
away the whole germ theory of disease ! In view of the chaotic 
condition in which the germ theory now lies, I might quote the 
puzzled suggestion of the editor of The Lancet as recently as 
March last : " Germs may, perhaps, be normal inhabitants of 
the body, only assuming importance in disease." This is the 
original theory of Bechamp, who complained that Pasteur first 
pirated and then prostituted it. 

13. Semmelweis was undoubtedly the founder of aseptic 
surgery. Mr. Paget points to the fact that after his unhappy 
end deaths from puerperal fever still occurred. That is not 
surprising. The medical profession would naturally be very 
slow to adopt the methods of the man they had persecuted and 
martyred. But the greatest surgical successes have been won 
by men like Tait, Savory, and Bantock in this country, and by 
Bergmann in Germany, who laughed at antiseptics and scorned 
the absurd ritual of Listerism. 

14. This I have already answered. 

15. Harvey's chief historical experiment re the circulation 
of the blood was upon a man who had been recently hanged. 
As a matter of fact the circulation was not established till 
years after his death, when Malpighi demonstrated (in 1661) 
the capillary circulation for the first time by means of the 
microscope. As Sir George Macilwain, F.R.C.S., rightly told 
the Royal Commission of 1876 : ' You could not discover 
the circulation in the living body." Mr. Paget says he " never 
said or thought that Harvey in his old age did not know what 
he was talking about." Allow me to quote his exact words. 
Referring to Sir Robert Boyle's letter, in which the latter 
shows that Harvey, on his own confession, gleaned his know- 
ledge from anatomy, and not from vivisection (although I 
have not denied that he vivisected), Mr. Paget says : — 

This letter has been quoted against all experiments on animals without 
the words " in the only discourse . . . before he died " (Mr. Paget's italics), 
which makes a difference ; for Harvey lived to fourscore years — anold man 
far advanced in years and occupied with other cares. 



23 

Perhaps Mr. Paget will explain what his inference really 
signified. 

Discovery of the Lymphatics. 

16. I am quite aware that Asellius discovered the lymphatics 
by sheer accident in the act of vivisecting a dog, and that he 
first thought them to be nerves. But why does Mr. Paget, 
whilst lauding the discovery of Asellius in 1622, keep in the 
background the fact that Fabrice de Peiresc, who lived 1580- 
1637, discovered the vessels in the body of a well-fed male- 
factor two hours after his execution ? And yet Mr. Paget 
says : " These little vessels are empty and invisible after 
death " ! Sir Charles Bell actually instructs students in his 
" Lectures " how to demonstrate them in the human body at 
a post mortem examination ! The vivisection of dogs was 
unnecessary. 

17. Beaumont was the very first to obtain human gastric 
juice, and to experiment with it. Spallanzani, to whom Mr. 
Paget refers, caused dogs to swallow pieces of sponge, and then 
withdrew them soaked in the secretion of the stomach ; but 
how could experiments with dogs, which can digest bones, 
throw any light upon human digestion ? Such experiments 
have only led to endless contradictions. 

18. Mr. Paget simply confirms what I have said — namely, 
that the discovery of glycogen had nothing to do with vivi- 
section. 

19. Mr. Paget quotes Sir Michael Foster's laudation of 
Claude Bernard's work on the pancreas. " Bernard," says 
Mr. Paget, " went back to De Graafe's use of an artificial 
fistula," and yet the same authority — Sir Michael Foster — 
says " De Graafe's work was very imperfect and fruitless " ! 
As a matter of fact, what little Claude Bernard discovered 
about this subject was due to physiological chemistry, and not 
to vivisection. And the only definite information we have 
gleaned as to intestinal digestion was that by Busch, who 
studied the subject clinically in a woman who had a perforated 
wound in the abdomen through being tossed by a cow. But, 
after all, none of it has been of any practical benefit. 

20. Sir Charles Bell's words are conclusive : — 

Experiments have never been the means of discovery, but the opening up 
of living animals has done more to perpetuate error than to confirm the 
just views taken from the study of anatomy and living motions. 

This statement utterly repudiates Mr. Paget's unworthy sug- 
gestions, against which Bell had to defend himself in his own 
lifetime. 

21. Mr. Paget says : " Claude Bernard's discovery of the 
vaso-motor action of nerves has never been disputed." If 



24 

he will turn to page 641 of Professor Flint's " Human Phy- 
siology " he will see that the discovery is attributed to Brown- 
Sequard. And on p. 643 he will see some of Bernard's " shock- 
ing cruelties " to which I referred. As to Bernard's rabbit's 
ear experiment being the " beginning of all knowledge," if 
Mr. Paget will turn to Dr. Munk's Roll of the Royal College 
of Physicians, Vol. II., p. 125, he will see that a famous Oxford 
anatomist, Dr. Mark Nicholls, proved the presence and func- 
tion of the vaso-motor nerves in the course of his investigations 
on aneurism in the human subject as far back as the eighteenth 
century. 

Vivisection of Apes. 

22. This is a mere evasion of my contention. Eighteen 
persons at Berne had their thyroids removed : certain definite 
symptoms supervened, and we learnt that if you want to 
avoid those symptoms you must keep your thyroid intact 
or introduce something that corresponds to it (whether thyroid 
extract or iodine, which has been discovered to be its active 
principle). The subsequent vivisection of apes was unneces- 
sary, cruel, and useless. The " function of the normal gland " 
had been already discovered, and the rest was a matter of 
common-sense and chemistry. 

23. Mr. Paget is " sorry he did not speak of the clinical 
observations of Broca, Charcot, and Hughlings Jackson." 
Why did he omit them ? Why does he slur them over now ? 
He says : " Chatcot would have rejoiced to see the results 
of Fritsch, Hitzig, Ferrier, &c." He surely ought to know 
that the work of the clinicians has alone stood the test of 
long scientific experience in relation to the human brain. 
Goltz entirely repudiated the conclusions of Ferrier. Fritsch 
and Hitzig denied the conclusions of Fleurens. It is in the 
quarrels of vivisectors over cerebral localisation in the lower 
animals that one finds more than anywhere else the truth of 
the dictum uttered by Sir Michael Foster in 1895 : — 

The very spirit of a scientific man was to believe that his brother was a 
liar, and that his one duty was to prove it. 

24. The observations upon mouse cancer certainly con- 
stitute a scandal and a farce, seeing that the}?- are put before 
the public as steps towards the discovery of a remedy for 
human cancer, to which the mouse tumour bears no real 
resemblance. 

25. Mr. Paget answers himself. Whilst partially admitting 
the fact, he declines to face the unimpeachable evidence I 
have adduced from the confessions of vivisectors themselves 
as regards the pain of inoculation processes. I too have 
visited the Pasteur Institute, and my conclusions were the 



25 

opposite of Mr. Paget's. He only appears to see animals 
that are " comfortable." Mice carrying tumours (sometimes 
three times their body weight) are merely " hampered in their 
movements " ! He even distinguishes between " looking 
ill " and " showing signs of suffering," which are usually fairly 
synonymous in the case of human patients. If the idyllic 
conditions enumerated by Mr. Paget prevail in the labora- 
tories, will he explain why, at the Royal Commission, when 
the inspector was asked whether a medical man appointed by 
an anti-vivisection society would be allowed to visit them, 
he replied : " I see no way of doing it " ? (Q. 142.) 

26. Professor Starling writes in his " Elements of Human 
Physiology," page 273 : " Any painful stimulation of a sensory 
nerve, especially in the abdomen, excites a reflex inhibition " ; 
and again, on page. 249 : " Stimulation of the sensory nerves 
of the heart produce . . . pain, as evinced by the movement 
of an animal not fully under the influence of an anaesthetic." 
And yet Professor Starling has been " engaged in the experi- 
mental pursuit of physiology for the last seventeen years, 
and has on no occasion ever seen pain inflicted in any experi- 
ment on a dog or cat, or he might add, on a rabbit " ! 

Claude Bernard truly wrote of his own class : — 

A physiologist is no ordinary man. He is a learned man possessed and 
absorbed by a scientific idea. He does not hear the animals' cries of pain. 
He is blind to the blood that flows. He sees nothing but his idea. 



FIVE POUNDS 

Will make you a 
Life Member of the 

British Union for Abolition of Vivisection. 



The Society founded in 1898 
BY 

Miss FRANCES POWER COBBE 

(Foundress of the British Anti- Vivisection Movement). 
Members, 10/-. Associates, 2/6. 



26 



[From " The Standard," February 3, 1910.] 

The Case for Vivisection. 

ii. 



By STEPHEN PAGET, F.R.C.S. 



1. (a) It is true that the authorities concerned with the 
administration of the Act are not in favour of anti- vivisection ; 
they would not represent the opinion and the wishes of the 
country if they were, (b) Mr. Lawson Tait, in 1893, spoke 
heartily in favour of bacteriological experiments on animals. 
(See British Medical Journal, February 11, 1893.) These 
experiments are about 97 per cent, of all experiments on 
animals in this country. 

2. The increase in the total number of experiments in 
1908 was mainly due to the 12,500 observations made to test 
the action of effluents, in various stages of purification and 
dilution, on fishes and their eggs. Were these observations 
fraught with deadly results ? And why are they reckoned 
as " vivisections without anaesthesia " by the anti-vivisection 
societies ? 

3. I saw every horse on Burroughs and Wellcome's premises 
at Heme Hill. Their condition was exactly as I described 
it. Not one of them had " blood-poisoning." They were 
all in excellent health. 

4. The Act was drafted in the days before bacteriology. 
The result is that all inoculations are scheduled, as experiments 
made without ansesthetics, under Certificate A. We want 
a special certificate for inoculations, instead of this old 
Certificate A. 

5. I said nothing of Pasteur's work in chemistry. I gave 
a list of his eight principal theories. One had to do with 
crystals, one with ferments, and six with the prevention of 
disease. None of them has been disproved. 

6. Koch's postulates did not break down in the cases that 
I quoted. For a good later example of the fulfilment of 
Koch's postulates, take Sir David Brace's discovery of the 
cause of Malta fever. A certain sort of germ was found 
in the spleens of all patients who had died of the fever. These 
germs were got to grow, in pure culture, in test-tubes. With 
these pure cultures, just the one sort of germs and nothing 
else, monkeys were inoculated. They showed signs of the 



27 

fever : joint pains, wasting, and so forth. Their organs, 
after death, were found to contain the germs in vast numbers. 

7. Asepsis is not " simple cleanliness." It is elaborate 
sterilising with boiling water or hot air. 

The Malta Fever Argument. 

8. The old notion that Malta fever is due to " emanations 
from the harbour," or to " filth." was disproved by Brace's 
experiments, and by the facts (1) that several cases of 
accidental infection — one of them fatal — have occurred in 
England among men studying the disease, by mere handling 
of pure cultures ; (2) that the officers, and their wives and 
children, living in large, airy, and clean rooms, suffered more 
than three times as heavily as the rank and file in their more 
crowded barrack-rooms. The reason was that they drank 
much more of the infected milk. 

The official prohibition of the goat's milk to our sailors and 
soldiers came into force on July 1, 1906 ; but for some months 
the men had been unofficially advised against the milk. In 
July-September, 1905, there had been 258 cases ; in July- 
September, 1906, there were 26. In 1905 there had been 
643 cases. In 1907 there were eleven. In the two worst 
months for the fever. July and August, 1907, there was not 
one case. 

The Maltese went on drinking the goat's milk and having 
the fever. Of course, many of them have had it in childhood, 
and are more or less immune ; they suffer less heavily than 
did our men, who came fresh to the island. Still, the contrast 
is plain enough. " I have a letter," says Bruce to the Royal 
Commission, November 5, 1907, " from Dr. Zammit, who 
is a member of the Board of Health, and he informs me that 
the number of cases of Malta fever in the native population 
is as great this year (1907) as ever." 

9. The " germ theory " is that certain germs cause certain 
diseases. When a man says that " the whole germ theory 
is nothing but twaddle and nonsense from beginning to end," 
why should he refuse to try on himself a pure culture ? The 
germs of variola, vaccinia, scarlet fever, and yellow fever 
have not yet been discovered ; but the germs of tetanus, 
typhoid, tubercle, and plague have. Why should he not 
try some of them ? 

10. There is nothing wrong with Dr. Plexner's statistics. 
The practical use of remedies is to be judged by their results 
in cases where they have a chance of being useful. Remedies 
are for cases that are not past all hope of remedy. To exclude 
the moribund cases is the only way to estimate the practical 
yalue of a remedy for cases which are not yet moribund. 



28 

Dr. Robb, on the other hand, excluded no cases. His 
cases in hospital, with the serum, had a mortality of only 
29' 6 per cent ; while outside the hospital, at the same time, 
in the same city, but without the serum, the mortality was 
more than 80 per cent. 

11. Sir John Simon's prophecy, made long before the 
days of solid media for the culture of germs, was what I said 
it was. 

12. As it is with arguments, so it is with germs : virulence 
is one thing, and vitality is another. 

13. The founder of aseptic surgery was Pasteur. The date 
of his Chamonix experiment is September 22, 1860. In 1878, 
Pasteur was expounding and enforcing the principles and 
practice of aseptic surgery, as a new method, in the hospitals 
of Paris. Semmelweis died in 1865 ; his work was lost, for 
this very reason, that he could not demonstrate, as Pasteur 
did, the actual cause of puerperal fever, the thing itself, 
visible under the microscope. 

14. See 7 and 13. 

Harvey's Experiments. 

15. Harvey's account of his discovery of the course of 
the blood was published in 1621. His letters to Riolanus, 
dwelling on points still disputed in the great controversy, 
were written twenty-eight years later, in 1649. In these 
letters, he alludes to several dissections of bodies after hanging ; 
but he only uses them to illustrate, in 1649, what he had 
discovered before 1621. The words which I put in italics 
in Boyle's letter are the words which a well-known writer 
against all experiments on animals left out. They are 
important, as evidence that Harvey's talk with Boyle was 
five-and- thirty years after the publication of his " De Motu 
Cordis et Sanguinis." 

16. I have looked up Gassendi's "Life of Fabrice de 
Peiresc." Gassendi, who writes most execrable Latin, 
published a book giving an account of Asellius's great 
discovery. Peiresc got a copy, was immensely delighted, 
ordered copies for all his medical friends, and was anxious 
to do Asellius's experiment over and over again. He no 
more discovered the lacteal s than I did. Of course, after 
Asellius had found, by opening one in the living animal, 
that they were full of chyle after a meal, it was easy for Bell, 
two centuries later, to instruct students in that fact. 

17. "I make no claim," says Beaumont in 1838, in his 
account of his experiments on Alexis Saint Martin, " to 
originality in my opinion, as it respects the existence and the 
operation of the gastric juice. My experiments confirm 



29 

the doctrines (with some modifications) taught by Spallanzani 
and many of the most enlightened physiological writers." 

18. That is not what Dr. Hadwen said. 

19. De Graafe's work (1662) was very imperfect and fruitless, 
for this reason, that there was not enough physiological 
chemistry, in the seventeenth century, to analyse the 
pancreatic juice when he had obtained it. Bernard, in the 
nineteenth century, obtained the pancreatic juice by De 
Graafe's method of a fistula, and analysed it by the methods 
of physiological chemistry. Was Busch before, or after, 
Bernard ? 

20. I must repeat Bell's own words about his own 
experiments, written in 1811, at the very time of his great 
discovery : " / thought that I had an opportunity of putting 
my opinion to the test of experiment ; . . . an opportunity of 
proving. . . Such were my reasons for concluding. . . . I now 
saw the meaning. . It now became obvious. ^ It is 
impossible to explain away these phrases. 

21. (a) Brown Sequard, like Bernard, followed the experi- 
mental method. (6) I have looked up Munk's Roll. I find 
no evidence there that Nicholls proved either the presence 
or the function of the vaso-motor nerves ; he only gives a 
vague description that would do for them. Neither do I 
find any connection between that description and his study 
of aneurysm. 

22. (a) Iodine is not the active principle of the thyroid 
gland. (6) Iodine is useless in cases of insufficiency of the 
gland, such as are cured with thyroid extract, (c) Horsley's 
experiments were a most important link in the whole chain 
of the evidence. 

23. The " work of the clinicians " for the last thirty years 
has been done in the light of the experiments made by Fritsch, 
Hitzig, Ferrier, and others. The " quarrels " over cerebral 
localisation belong to past history. 

24. Mouse-cancer is real cancer, and the very image of 
cancer in us. The condition of the mice was exactly as T 
described it. 

25. I do not say that all inoculations are painless ; I only 
say that the pain is grossly and deliberately exaggerated 
by the official opponents of all experiments on animals. 

26. Dr. Hadwen leaves out from the sentence in Professor 
Starling's evidence the very words that he ought to have put in. 

A Quotation from Newman. 

I would conclude with an apt though lengthy quotation 
from Newman. It is close on half a century since he published 
his lectures on. " The Present Position of Catholics in England." 



30 

His religion was assailed, by certain of the " No Popery " 
men, with just those weapons which are now employed by 
the anti- vivisection societies for the assault of science. I 
commend the following paragraphs to the reader : — 

" We should have cause to congratulate ourselves, though 
we were able to proceed no further than to persuade our 
opponents to argue out one point before going on to another. 
It would be much even to get them to give up what they 
could not defend, and to promise that they would not return 
to it. It would be much to succeed in hindering them from 
making a great deal of an objection till it is refuted, and 
then suddenly considering it so small that it is not worth 
withdrawing. It would be much to hinder them from eluding 
a defeat on one point by digressing upon three or four others, 
and then presently running back to the first, and then to and 
fro, to second, third, and fourth, and treating each in turn 
as if quite a fresh subject, on which not a word had yet been 
said. 

" No evidence against us is too little ; no infliction too 
great. Statement without proof, though inadmissible in 
every other case, is all fair when we are concerned. An 
opponent is at liberty to bring a charge against us, and 
challenge us to refute not any proof he brings, for he brings 
none, but his simple assumption or assertion. 

" We are dressed up like a scarecrow to gratify, on a large 
scale, the passions of curiosity, fright, and hatred. Something 
or other men must fear, men must loathe, men must suspect, 
even if it be to turn away their minds from their own inward 
miseries. . . 

" A calumny against us first appeared in 1836 ; it still 
thrives and flourishes in 1851. I have made inquiries, and 
I am told that I may safely say that in the course of the 
fifteen years that it has lasted from 200,000 to 250,000 copies 
have been put into circulation in America and England. . . ." 

" The Prejudiced Man." 

" The Prejudiced Man takes it for granted that we who 
differ from him are universally impostors, tyrants, hypocrites, 
cowards, and slaves. If he meets with any story against us, 
on any or no authority, which does but fall in with this notion 
of us, he eagerly catches at it. Authority goes for nothing ; 
likelihood, as he considers it, does instead of testimony ; what 
he is now told is just what he expected. 

" About our state of mind, our views of things, our ends 
and objects, our doctrines, our defence of them, he absolutely 
refuses to be enlightened. . . 

" The most overwhelming refutations of the calumnies 



31 

brought against us do us no good at all. We were tempted 
perhaps to say to ourselves : ' What will they have to say 
in answer to this ? Now at last the falsehood is put down 
for ever ; it will never show its face again.' Vain hope ! 
Such is the virtue of prejudice — it is ever reproductive ; 
future story-tellers and wonder-mongers, as yet unknown to 
fame, are below the horizon, and will unfold their tale of 
horror, each in his day, in long succession. . 

" Perhaps it is wrong to compare sin with sin, but I declare 
to you, the more I think of it the more intimately does this 
Prejudice seem to me to corrupt the soul, even beyond those 
sins which are commonly called more deadly. And why ? 
Because it argues so astonishing a want of mere natural 
charity or love of our kind. They can be considerate in all 
matters of this life, friendly in social intercourse, charitable 
to the poor and outcast, merciful towards criminals, nay, 
kind towards the inferior creation, towards their cows and 
horses and swine. Yet as regards us, who bear the same 
form, speak the same tongue, breathe the same air, and walk 
the same streets, ruthless, relentless, believing ill of us, and 
wishing to believe it. They are tenacious of what they believe ; 
they are impatient of being argued with ; they are angry at 
being contradicted ; they are disappointed when a point is 
cleared up ; they had rather that we should be guilty than 
they mistaken ; they have no wish at all that we should not be 
unprincipled rogues and bloodthirsty demons. They are 
kinder even to their dogs and their cats than to us. Is it 
not true ? Can it be denied ? Is it not portentous ? Does 
it not argue an incompleteness or hiatus in the very structure 
of their moral nature ? Has not something, in their case, 
dropped out of the list of natural qualities proper to man ? " 

What Newman said of such enemies of his religion is true 
of such enemies of the doctor's science. Revelations, lifted 
veils, horrible disclosures, and startling exposures, may have 
to do with convents, or with medical schools and laboratories ; 
and " platform facts " are at Caxton Hall what they used to 
be at Exeter Hall. People then made guys, on the fifth of 
November, of the Pope ; now they put up a lying little drinking 
fountain at Battersea. Then, it was the evidence of escaped 
nuns ; now, it is the affidavit of a charwoman at the Rocke- 
feller Institute. They stirred up then, falsehood and hatred ; 
they stir up now, falsehood and hatred. 



Report of the Debate at Shrewsbury between Dr. Had wen 

and Mr. Stephen Paget. 

Published by the British Union, 32, Charing Cross, London. 

Price 2c\, post free. 



32 



[From " The /Standard" February 4, 1910.] 

The Case against Vivisection 

(Conclusion). 



By WALTER R. HADWEN, M.D., J.P. 



Under ordinary circumstances it would not be easy to reply 
to a two-column article in the space of one, but my task 
is rendered less difficult by reason of the fact that Mr. Paget's 
rejoinders consist for the most part of evasions or proofless 
assertions : — 

1. He now admits that the authorities who, as he alleged, 
made such " careful inquiry and consultation over the granting 
of licences and certificates " are "not in favour of Anti-vivi- 
section." That is enough for my case. 

2. Lawson Tait appears to have made a single complimentary 
reference to the new science of bacteriology at a meeting 
in 1893. A few months before his death in 1899, in my own 
drawing-room, he roared with laughter at the increasing 
absurdities of the modern germ theory of disease. He agreed 
with Miss Florence Nightingale, who once wrote : " The 
disease germ-fetish and the witchcraft-fetish are the product 
of the same mental condition.." 

3. Mr. Paget's paragraphs (2), (3), and (7) are pure evasions 
of the points under discussion, nor does he answer my plain 
question in (4). 

4. As to (5), (6), and (8), Pasteur's theory of the specific 
germ origin of disease stands or falls with Koch's postulates, 
concerning which the editor of The Lancet has averred : "It 
must be acknowledged that all these postulates are complied 
with very rarely indeed, if ever." Mr. Paget could not have 
given a worse instance than Malta fever. Space forbids my 
dealing with it fully ; I refer my readers to The Contemporary 
Review of November last, pp. 605-6, in which I conclusively 
disproved at length these bald assertions. His further remarks 
on the subject are simply random statements, totally unsup- 
ported by statistics, and contradicted by Colonel Bruce 
himself, who emphatically asserted (Q. 14382) that there were 
" no preventive measures at work during the first half of 
1906," and yet Malta fever had been practically wiped out 
in that period. Why ? I have proved indisputably from 



33 

official statistics that Malta fever declined in the Navy 
proportionately as the Grand Harbour (the cesspit of centuries) 
was cleansed ; and a similar result was obtained in the Army 
directly the soldiers were moved (at the end of 1905) from the 
unhealthy and insanitary quarters at St. Elmo to new and 
healthy barracks on the hillside. Why does he have the 
temerity to say that the goat's milk-drinking population 
is suffering as heavily as before, when, according to the last 
official annual report of the island (1909), Malta fever (thanks 
to important and extensive sanitary improvements) has 
declined among the natives 50 per cent.? Why does he claim 
that the civil population are immune owing to having Malta 
fever in infancy, when he knows that there is not a solitary 
statistical table in existence to support his assertion ? 

Yellow Fever Germ. 

5. Mr. Paget refuses (9) to face the logic of my argument 
about vaccinia and variola, and replies with fatuous faith, 
" the germs have not yet been discovered ! " He now includes 
the " yellow fever " germ in the list of failures about which 
he was formerly as confident as in his sheep-pox debacle. 
In the first edition of his book, " Experiments on Animals," 
he related one of the most (apparently) conclusive stories 
concerning the marvellous effects of a yellow fever serum that 
I have ever read. And yet that serum was due to what he 
now admits to have been the wrong germ. That one instance 
proved either that the germ theory is false (if the serum did 
good) or that the statistics in its favour are " cooked " if 
it did not. In the second edition of his book he withdrew this 
magical story altogether. He now actually introduces a 
fresh list of germs with the same unbounded confidence. 

6. (10) Would Flexner have administered his serum if 
the cases had been " moribund " ? Incredible ! If the 
serum is valueless when it is most needed where is its value ? 
Whilst Flexner has reduced the mortality of his own spotted 
fever cases from 90 per cent, to 15 per cent, by a self-con- 
fessed method of statistical jugglery, the latest unsophisticated 
returns of the New York Health Board show a death-rate 
of over 90 per cent. 

7. Pars. (11) — (17) are all evasions pure and simple ; I 
ask my readers to compare Mr. Paget's statements and my 
replies. 

8. Apparently Mr. Paget claims (18) that Bernard discovered 
glycogen not by "an examination of the livers of recently 
dead human subjects " as I stated, but from the livers of dogs 
suddenly killed. He can have it that way if he likes. In 
neither case is it vivisection. 



34 

9. Bernard's experiments (19) on the pancreas were mis- 
leading, because they were conducted on dogs, which do not 
take starch naturally as food. The experiments of Busch 
upon a human subject without vivisection are, therefore, 
the only reliable ones. 

10. Sir Charles Bell complains in " The Nervous System of 
the Human Body," p. 217 :— 

In a foreign view of my former papers the results have been considered 
as a further proof in favour of experiments. They are, on the contrary, 
deductions from anatomy, and I have had recourse to experiments not 
to form my own opinions, but to impress them upon others. It must be 
my apology that my utmost efforts of persuasion were lost while I urged my 
statements on the ground of anatomy alone. 

His reiterated refutation, when reviewing his work, of this 
misrepresentation (20) should suffice. 

11. Mr. Paget has " looked up Munks Roll," and admits 
(21) that " a vague description " that would answer to the 
vaso-motor nerves is found there. That is as much as I should 
expect him to acknowledge, and it satisfies me. 

The Thyroid Treatment. 

12. Here we have another assertion (22) without any 
proof. Professor Baumann has isolated the active principle 
of the thyroid gland, and fo\md it simply iodine in an organic 
specific combination. Iodine was administered successfully 
twenty years before Horsley's monkey experiments. The 
thryoid treatment was a natural deduction ; but it is by no 
means universally successful. 

13. This statement (23) as to brain surgery is simply untrue. 
I refer my readers to my previous replies. Speaking of 
these laboratory experiments, Dr. Samuel West, president of 
the Medical Society, London, recently said : " They are coarse 
and clumsy compared with those experiments which Nature 
performs in disease." 

14. When Mr. Paget can find a human being with a " cancer " 
three times his body weight, with no deposits in the lymph 
glands, no secondary deposits, and the whole thing sponta- 
neously disappearing, I will accept his extraordinary assertion 
that " mouse cancer is real cancer." Until then I beg to 
take it cum grano salts. 

15. Mr. Paget says (25) " the pain is grossly and deliberately 
exaggerated by the official opponents " of vivisection. But 
I asked him to meet the confessions of his own class. He 
avoids doing so. 

16. He charges me, in conclusion (26), with omitting certain 
words in Professor Starling's evidence as to his ignorance 
of the infliction of pain. I presume he means " in a physi- 



35 

ological laboratory in this country," from which I judge we 
are to infer that whilst other vivisectors and Home Office 
officials have frankly confessed to the infliction of " great 
pain and suffering " upon helpless animals in English labora- 
tories, Professor Starling has seen nothing of the kind, because 
he has executed his cruelties abroad ! 

17. The long religious invective from the pen of Cardinal 
Newman with which Mr. Paget concludes is inappropriate. 
It is the Anti-vivisectionists, not the vivisectors, who are 
met with prejudice — a prejudice which often prevents a too 
credulous public, anxious to snatch at, possibly, physical 
benefits, from examining their case. That case rests not 
only upon a scientific, but (what is really the same thing) 
upon an impregnable moral basis. As my lamented friend, the 
late celebrated Dr. Charles Bell Taylor, put it : — ; 

" It is monstrous to suppose that a great, good, all-powerful 
God has so arranged the government of the world, as to 
make our salvation depend upon the cruel torture of the 
helpless fellow-creatures he has entrusted to our care. No 
good has ever come of vivisection, and none ever will." 



a 



The ABOLITIONIST." 



The Leading Organ of the 

Anti- Vivisection Movement. 

A TWENTY-PAGE MONTHLY PAPER 

(ILLUSTRATED). 

Contains a record of the work of the 

British Union for Abolition of Vivisection. 



N.B. — All who are interested in the progress of the 
humanitarian ideal should follow the great work 
accomplished by this Society, which has an un- 
rivalled record. 

STUDY ITS REPORT! 



Apply to the Secretary, 32, Charing Cross, London, 
for particulars. 



36 



[From " The Standard," February 4, 1910.] 

The Case for Vivisection 

(Conclusion). 



By STEPHEN PAGET, F.R.C.S. 



I mentioned in my last article some affidavits against 
the Rockefeller Institute, lately published in The New York 
Herald. They show the usual exaggeration and worse than 
exaggeration : and they have been met and answered by 
Dr. Flexner, director of the Institute : — 

. . . The character of the witnesses employed hy the New York Anti- 
vivisection Society to make the charges of cruelty may be gathered from the 
following facts. The Kennedy woman, the chief witness relied on, was 
employed as a scrub-woman. The men Dutton and Smith, the other witnesses, 
were ex-employes discharged for sufficient cause. Since the Kennedy woman 
stated under oath that the employment in the operating room was very 
distasteful to her because of the cruel way in which the animals were treated, 
it is of some importance to learn that she secured, surreptitiously brought to 
the institute in a bag, and offered for sale for 30 cents, to be used for experi- 
mental purposes, the pet cat of her neighbour ; and when rebuked by Miss 
Lilly, the trained nurse, on the ground that the act constituted a theft, she 
attempted to exculpate herself by saying that as the cat strayed into her 
rooms she had a right to it. 

The true value of the so-called damaging testimony against the Rockefeller 
Institute is, however, further exhibited by a statement, in my possession, 
made under oath by an ex-employee, to the effect that Mrs. Kennedy, accom- 
panied by two other women, visited her, endeavoured to make her say that she 
had witnessed cruel treatment of animals at the Institute, and offered her 
a hundred dollars for information ; and that one of the women showed her 
the money in a bag. 

I desire to deny totally the statements of cruelty made in the affidavits, 
and to state unqualifiedly that the allegations are false, ignorant, and wilfully 
misleading. 

That is what Dr. Flexner says (New York Times, January 17). 
And Mr. J. Seligmann, a leading banker, of New York, and 
a director of the New York Society for the Prevention of 
Cruelty to Animals, says : — " I visited the institution several 
days ago, being taken through by Dr. Flexner. I spent two 
hours in the place, and found it a model institution, where 
everything was being conducted in a splendid way. All 
the animals were shown to me, and I saw no evidence of cruelty. 
I felt sure they were all being well treated." (See Evening 
Standard, January 5). The Institute has agreed to a full inquiry, 
which is now being held, into these affidavits. No man of 



37 

sense, no man of honour, would hurry to trade on them without 
waiting for a word of inquiry. But our Anti- vivisection societies 
are not careful either to make or to await inquiries ; and Dr. 
Hadwen's Society, and Mr. Trist's Society, have sent these 
affidavits broadcast over the country, headed " Revelations 
from the Rockefeller Hell," "Rockefeller's Inferno," "The 
Veil Lifted," and so forth. The societies know what happened 
when " Dark Deeds," and " The Nine Circles," and " Shambles 
of Science " were submitted to inquiry. 

The Professional View. 

The opinions of my adversary are not those of his pro- 
fession. 

In this kingdom there are 30,000 doctors. Not many of 
them would say what he has been saying, nor would any 
other man with any decent regard for facts. Ask your own 
doctor what he thinks of Pasteur, of Lister, of diphtheria- 
antitoxin, of Bruce's work on Malta fever and Flexner's work 
on epidemic meningitis, of cerebral localisation, of cancer 
research. Ask him to tell you how the ordinary tests for typhoid, 
tubercle, anthrax, cholera, and plague are founded on experi- 
ments on animals. Ask him whether you ought or ought not 
to believe what Darwin said in 1875 and 1881 : — " I am fully 
convinced that physiology can progress only by the aid of 
experiments on living animals. I cannot think of any one 
step which has been made in physiology without that aid. 
To retard the progress of physiology is to commit a crime 
against humanity." 

Benefits of Research. 

Or take not the opinion of one man ; but the general opinion- 
Securus judicat orbis terrarum : the judgment of the whole 
round world must be right. It is now just a quarter of a cen- 
tury since the discovery of the preventive treatment of rabies. 
•There are, in diverse parts of the world, fifty-one Pasteur 
Institutes. At all of them it is the same thing : a mortality 
of about 1 per cent., even in those cases where the madness 
of the animal that bit the patient is proved by this fact — that 
a particle of its brain or spinal cord taken from its body after 
death and introduced into another animal reproduces the 
disease. This annual redemption of lives under the shadow 
of the worst of all deaths, has been many years now in the 
world. 

Or take diphtheria antitoxin. It has been for fifteen years 
incessantly used. Go round the entire map of the earth — 
London, Paris, Rome, Berlin, Vienna, St. Petersburg, India, 
Japan, San Francisco, Canada, • Chicago, Boston, New York, 
Liverpool, and so home — everywhere it is the same story of 



38 

the lives of children saved, by this time, literally, in hundreds 
of thousands. Is the whole world such a fool that it does 
not know, after all these years of experience, what is good 
for it ? 

Or take the lives of animals saved or safeguarded, literally 
in millions, by methods discovered by experiments on animals. 
By his anthrax- vaccine alone, discovered in 1881, Pasteur 
brought down the mortality of the disease from 10 per cent, 
in sheep, and 5 per cent, in cattle, to 1 per cent, in sheep and 
03 per cent, in cattle. I do not say that every country every 
year has got results so good as that : nor do I say that all 
sheep and cattle in this country ought to be thus treated, 
for on this island the disease is rare. But I do say that every 
year the use of the vaccine increases. In 1908 alone, the 
Pasteur Institute in Paris sent out doses enough to protect 
750,000 sheep and 550,000 cattle. Are the farmers all such fools 
that they do not know, after twenty-eight years, what is good 
for their flocks and herds ? Or consider how Pasteur, by ex- 
periments on silk worms, prevented the spread of disease 
among them, when the revenue from the silk trade had fallen 
from 130 million francs to 30 million, with men and women out 
of work and children starving. By such work, as Huxley said, 
Pasteur saved France enough to pay the indemnity of the 
Franco-German War. 

Nothing, in all the five Blue-books published by the present 
Royal Commission, is more striking than the evidence of Mr. 
Stockman, Sir David Bruce, and Professor Hamilton, as to the 
good work that has been done, and is being done, for animals. 
And with it should be read carefully Mr. Hobday's evidence 
as to modern veterinary practice. The whole thing is wonderful 
— the infinite study in all parts of the world of the diseases 
of animals. 

Neither is it too much to say that the vast campaign t 
against malaria, yellow fever, Malta fever, and sleeping sickness, 
is the outcome of experiments on animals. Cuba, the Panama 
Canal, Malta, Nigeria, Uganda, the Philippines, Greece, 
Egypt, the Sudan — these names recall heroic work done by the 
help of the experimental method, in the light of Pasteur's 
life, and in the discipline of science, and some lives laid down 
for us. 

I say us ; yet we are, ourselves, the " vivisectors." We 
pay to have the work done for us as taxpayers. County 
councils, municipal corporations, the Board of Agriculture, 
the Home Office, the War Office, the Colonial Office, the 
Local Government Board, the Metropolitan Asylums Board, 
all make use of experiments on animals in our interests, as 
our representatives for the protection of our national health. 



39 

The Anti- Vivisection Movement. 

Meanwhile, in thirty years, the sixteen anti- vivisect ion 
societies have received more than a hundred thousand pounds. 
Mr. Stephen Coleridge himself described, in 1902, " the de- 
plorable waste of money spent in perfectly unnecessary 
offices and salaries." One office, he said, would amply suffice 
for all the work, and many of the anti -vivisection societies were 
quite needless. Their internal dissensions, their false books 
and leaflets, their " platform facts," have wearied thoughtful 
people out. They have shocked quiet folk with sham horrors, 
have shaken unstable minds, have stirred up class hatred, 
and infected the kingdom with brutal assertions and suggestions. 
" They have done nothing," says Dr. Keen, of Philadelphia, 
" but to stand in the way of progress. Not a single human 
life has been saved by their efforts ; not a single household 
made happy. Not a single disease has had its ravages abated 
or abolished. The victims of their sincere but misguided zeal 
are men, women, and little children. Even the lower animals 
may well cry, ' Save us from our friends.' " It is not strange 
that the Research Defence Society has had a good welcome. 
People do want to hear what it has to tell them about experi- 
ments on animals in this country, and about the administra- 
tion of the Act. I shall be glad as hon. secretary to answer all 
inquiries, receive applications for membership or associateship, 
supply literature, and make arrangements for addresses and 
lantern lectures. The anti-vivisection societies, likewise offer 
their wares. Very well ; it is the duty of the public to judge 
between us. Every word of evidence before the Royal Com- 
mission, all the 21,761 questions and answers, have long 
been published, and may be got from Messrs. Wyman and 
Sons, Fetter-lane, E.C. 

I have not discussed with my opponent the " moral ques- 
tion." I prefer to wait till mercy and truth are met together. 



THREE AFFIDAVITS 

Of ex-Employees at the Rockefeller Institute, 
New York (December, 1909). 

SEND STAMP FOR POSTAGE ONLY. 



British Union for Abolition of Vivisection, 

32, Charing Cross, London, S.W. 



40 

As already intimated in the Preface, although the controversy, 
as arranged by the Editor, was concluded with the preceding letter, 
Mr. Paget was allowed to contribute a further contribution on the 
following day under the heading of " Dr. Hadwen's Charges" 
and thus the controversy recmnmenced. 

[From " The Standard," February 7, 1910.] 

Dr. Had wens Charges. 

To the Editor of The Standard. 

Sir, — Dr. Hadwen's last article raises a few questions 
which need answer : — 

1. Mr. Law son Tait, at an important medical meeting in 
Birmingham, spoke heartily in favour of the British Institute 
of Preventive Medicine, the present Lister Institute. He 
said that he fully assented to the resolution in its favour, 
" feeling that, while he objected to a certain class of surgical 
investigations, bacteriological experiments on animals had 
proved of great value." {British Medical Journal, 
February 11, 1893.) 

2. In 1906 Malta fever was practically abolished among 
our sailors and soldiers by the prohibition of goats' milk. 
During 1907 the number of cases of Malta fever in the native 
population was as great as ever. By 1909 the native population 
knew more about the fever than they did in 1907. 

3. Dr. Hadwen's reference to " the latest unsophisticated 
returns of the New York Health Board " seems to have been 
copied from a very wild statement in the New York Herald, 
January 28, 1910. The further statement that Dr. Flexner 
claims to have brought down the mortality of his cases of 
epidemic meningitis to 15 per cent, is from the same source, 
and is absolutely false. 

4. Dr. Hadwen says that Baumann's thyroiodin is " simply 
iodine in an organic specific combination." You might as 
well say that whisky and water, half and half, is simply water 
in a specific combination. Anyhow, Baumann's work was 
founded on experiments # on animals. Iodine is absolutely 
useless in cases of thyroid insufficiency. 

5. Charcot was not a " brain-surgeon " ; he was a physician. 

6. A scientific basis cannot be " really the same thing " 
as a moral basis ; neither can the moral basis of a case be 
impregnable, if the case itself be built on false evidences and 
brutal calumnies. 

I wish to call the especial attention of your readers to the 



41 

affidavits lately made against the Rockefeller Institute. 
These affidavits were supplied through the New York Anti- 
Vivisection Society to the New York Herald, which for a year 
or more has been on the side of that society. For example, 
it published on February 14, 1909, quite seriously, a letter 
saying that a surgeon in St. Louis had transferred one dog's 
head to another dog's body : " The dog lived, strapped to 
the operating-board, twenty-six minutes (we learn), and, 
expiring, tried to respond to the exclamation, ' Rats ! ' 
And, on January 3, 1910, it published a letter restating the 
old falsehood about the Philadelphia foundlings and orphans 
who were " infected with tuberculosis in a modified form " 
in the interests of science. 

Dr. Hadwen and Mr. Trist, who represent the British Union 
for the Abolition of Vivisection and the London and Provincial 
Anti-Vivisection Society, have been sending these affidavits 
all over the country, not waiting for the inquiry which is now 
being held into them. It would never do to wait or to inquire. 
I published in The Standard last Friday the statement 
made (January 17) by Dr. Flexner, director of the institute, 
showing clearly the character of the chief witness against the 
institute, and the corrupt practices of the " humanitarians," 
tempting a poor woman, showing her lOOdols. in a bag. To-day 
I have received a letter from Dr. Flexner, dated January 28. 
" I hope," he says, " that you will make an absolute denial 
on all counts of the statements in the affidavits, and point 
out with emphasis the testimony of the employee to whom 
money was offered to give damaging evidence against the 
institute, and who declined to have anything to do with the 
persons making the offer. This employee was Dr. Carrel's 
assistant for two-and-a-half years, and told these persons 
that she had never witnessed or even heard of any cruelty at 
the institute, and sent them about their business." 

With this letter Dr. Flexner enclosed a statement, published 
in the New York Evening Mail, December 29, 1909, made by 
Max Sloman. It is a pity that Dr. Hadwen and Mr. Trist 
missed, or ignored, this statement. Sloman was in charge of 
the animal house of the institute for more than three years 
— October 5, 1906, to November 15, 1909. He was there 
throughout the whole time of employment of the three persons 
who made the affidavits. His statement was given voluntarily, 
and without the knowledge of the authorities at the institute. 
Nobody offered him lOOdols. in a bag. 

" During the time I was with the institute," he says, " I 
never once saw or heard of anything being done in a cruel 
manner. Never did I hear an animal cry out in pain. I 
never heard of an animal being operated upon without being 



42 

under an anaesthetic. In fact, it could not be done otherwise, 
for the animal's struggles would prevent the surgeon from 
working. After operations all living animals were returned 
to me, and, while I will not say they never suffered pain, 
I will say that everything was done to ease it." 

Also, in London, January 5, just one week after the publi- 
cation in America of the affidavits, the Evening Standard 
published Mr. Seligmann's statement : " I visited the institute 
several days ago, being taken through by Dr. Flexner. I 
spent two hours in the place, and found it a model institution, 
where everything was being conducted in a splendid way, 
All the animals were shown to me, and I saw no evidence 
of cruelty. I felt sure they were all being well-treated." 
Did Mr. Trist, or did he not, see this statement before he 
published his "Rockefeller's Inferno," "The Veil Lifted," 
" Shocking Abuses," " Awful Revelations of Callous Cruelty " ? 
Surely he subscribes to a press-cutting agency. Mr. Seligmann 
is a leading banker of New York, director of the New York 
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and present 
or past President of the Internationa] Humane Society ; and 
he was a delegate to an Anti-vivisection congress last year 
in London. Surely Mr. Trist must believe him. Mr. Trist's 
manifesto is dated ten days after Mr. Seligmann's statement- 
was published in London. Dr. Hadwen did see the statement, 
for his journal, The Abolitionist, explains it away as an instance 
of " credulity " outwitted by " hypocrisy, concealment, and 
lying." Full illustrated accounts, by Burton J. Hendrick, 
admirably written, of the Rockefeller Institute, and of Dr. 
Carrel's work there, were published in McClure's Magazine, 
February and April, 1909 (McClure Company, 10, Norfolk- 
street, Strand). — I am, Sir, your obedient servant, 

Stephen Paget, 
Hon. Secretary Research Defence Society, 

70, Harley-street, W., February 5. 



OPPONENTS OF VIVISECTION. 

The late Queen Victoria, Tolstoy, Mark Twain, 
Bishop Westcott, Dr. Johnson, Cardinal Manning, 
Shakespeare, Tennyson, Browning, Dr.Martineau, 
Carlyle, Spurgeon, Ruskin, the " Good " Earl of 
Shaftesbury, &c, &c. 

See " MEN and WOMEN of NOTE," 

Published by the British Union, 32, Charing Cross, London. 



43 



[From " 5T&e Standard," February 9, 1910.] 

Dr. Hadwcn's Reply. 

To the Editor of The Standard. 

Sir, — T thought that the controversy with Mr. Stephen 
Paget had closed in your columns. He was allowed the 
last word, and although in his concluding article he introduced 
a good deal of fresh matter, and indulged in language which 
was anything but courteous, I expressed no desire to break 
through the arrangement which had been entered into. I 
am somewhat surprised, therefore, to find him re-entering 
the lists under the excuse of answering " questions raised 
in my last article," but, apparently, for the chief purpose 
of making a violent attack upon me respecting a matter to 
which I have made no allusion whatever throughout the 
controversy, and concerning which the majority of your 
readers, in all probability, know nothing. 

His professed reply to the " questions " consists simply 
of a reiteration of what he has already said and what I have 
already answered. I can hardly believe that these methods 
of controversy will commend themselves to your readers. 
There are only three or four points I need refer to. 

1. Malta Fever. — The repetition by Mr. Paget of the 
dogmatic statement, " Malta fever was practically abolished 
among our sailors and soldiers by the prohibition of goat's 
milk," without a scrap of evidence in support of it, and without 
any attempt to disprove the absolutely unanswerable evidence 
I have produced to the contrary, is scarcely " playing the 
game." Let me point out this : Both Army and Navy from 
1901-6 were alike drinking goat's milk, and yet the attack 
rate of disease in the Army was more than double that of 
the Navy. The case mortality was 58 per cent, higher, and 
the average day sickness per man was considerably more 
than twice as great. Whatever excuse may be urged for 
this alarmingly greater severity in every detail obtaining 
in the Army over the Navy, one thing is absolutely clear 
to every intelligent and unbiassed mind, that, even if, for 
the sake of argument, goat's milk be admitted to be a factor 
in the disease, it cannot be the only factor. As a control 
experiment, however, let us turn to the civil population, which 
has laughed and still laughs at the goat's milk theory of the 
origin of the fever, and here we find that during the same period 
the attack rate was only four per thousand. That is, nearly 



44 

ten times less than the Army and more than four times less 
than the Navy. And although the general medical officer 
of the island has admitted with regret that the natives still 
treat his advice with contempt, their attack rate has since 
then been still further reduced 50 per cent. Instead of so 
much rhetoric, let Mr. Paget answer these plain facts. The 
figures upon which I have based my calculations I obtained 
from the War Office, Admiralty, and Colonial Office 
respectively. 

2. Mr. Paget does not get rid of statistics by simply saying 
they are " false." I leave him to provide your readers with 
what he deems to be authentic figures from New York in 
regard to cerebro-spinal meningitis. 

3. Perhaps Mr. Paget will explain by what other way 
than that of chemistry Professor Baumann could arrive at his 
conclusions as to what the active principle of the thyroid 
gland consists of. I am afraid from Mr. Paget's remarks he 
knows nothing at all about chemistry, or he would not make 
such rash observations. 

4. I will not bandy words with your correspondent as to 
whether Charcot was a " brain surgeon "or a " brain 
physician." We will leave it at physician if he prefer it. 
It will answer my case much better. As physician he would 
be likely to know more of the subject on which he is the greatest 
recognised authority. 

5. I need not reply to Mr. Paget's remarks upon the 
relationship between science and morality. It is quite clear, 
as he admits, that his conceptions of science and morality are 
not the same thing. Hence I could hardly expect him to 
understand my position. 

Now, as to the " Revelations of the Rockefeller Hell," 
consisting of three affidavits made by employees in the 
Rockefeller Research Institute, which have been published 
by my society. I confess they are amongst the most shocking 
details I have ever read of the vivi sector's work, and that is 
saying a good deal. As many of your readers will not know 
what all this is about, and will be unable to understand why 
Mr. Paget and Dr. Flexner are exhibiting so much excitement 
over the matter, permit me to say that any of your readers 
who will write to the secretary of the " British Union," 
32, Charing-cross, London, S.W., will be supplied with as 
many copies as they desire post free. It remains for Dr. 
Flexner to disprove the ugly charges brought against his 
establishment ; they are far too circumstantial and technical 
to have been supplied by any outsider, and they are certainly 
not disproved by his assertion that one of the persons making 
the affidavit, brought him a neighbour's cat while she was in 



45 

his employ, nor by the probable fact that she was remunerated 
for her evidence. The Mr. Seligman who is referred to as 
approving of the institute was not a delegate at an English 
Anti- Vivisection Congress, as Mr. Paget states ; he was only 
a visitor, and declared that he was a firm believer in vivisection. 
I presume, as Mr. Paget has been permitted to deal with 
my final article, I may be allowed to deal with his. I shall 
not touch upon the maze of extravagant language he indulges 
in upon all sorts of topics, but just confine myself to answering 
three points. I need not notice the heinous charge that I 
am in a grave minority, because that does not matter, inasmuch 
as the minority is usually in the right, and the medical 
profession has never yet been unanimous, so far as I know, 
except when it has been unanimously wrong. 

1. Diphtheria Anti-toxin.— The only reliable statistics are 
those of the Registrar-General, and they show an increase 
in the mortality from diphtheria since the introduction of 
anti-toxin compared with the period preceding. No hospital 
statistics are reliable, because the fatality is based for the 
most part upon a bacteriological instead of a clinical diagnosis, 
and the reputed bacillus of diphtheria does not answer to 
any of the recognised tests of its genuineness. 

2. Anthrax Vaccine. — Professor Muller, of the Royal 
Veterinary School of Berlin, is in direct conflict with Pasteur. 
He says : " Preventive inoculation of anthrax has no friends 
in Germany." Professor Roszhagesi in Hungary made 
experiments which were also in conflict with Pasteur, and the 
Hungarian Commission recommended the Government to 
prohibit the use of the vaccine. Our English Board of 
Agriculture advised farmers not to use Pasteur's method. 
Koch denounced it. It has been proved that, whilst anthrax 
vaccine has apparently protected in the laboratory against 
the effects of a second inoculation, it will not protect against 
the natural infection. The sale of this loudly-advertised 
article by the Pasteur Institute, which seems to be Mr. Paget's 
chief argument, is no evidence of its value. 

3. Hydrophobia Inoculations. — This, as my friend, Mr. 
J. H. Levy, says, does not appear to cure the people who 
have been bitten by a mad dog, but only those who are in a 
funk about it. The " cures " include such cases as Lord and 
Lady Minto, who were never bitten at all ! For thirty years 
in pre-inoculation days the average yearly deaths from 
hydrophobia numbered only 30 in a population of 40,000,000, 
but the deaths for the thirty years following Pasteur's intro- 
duction of anti-rabid inoculation average 100 per annum, 
in spite of the population of France lessening by the cession 
of Alsace-Lorraine. One report a few years ago showed 300 



46 

deaths — that is, a tenfold increase. The deaths of patients 
who have undergone " cure " at the Pasteur Institute up to 
the present time number about 2,200. That is a queer 
" remedy " ! — I am, Sir, your obedient servant, 

Walter R. Hadwen, M.D., 
Hon. Sec, British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection. 
32, Charing-cross, London, S.W. 



[From "The Standard" February 11, 1910.] 

Mr. Paget' s Last Word. 

To the Editor of The Standard. 

Sir, — Let me once more refer to Malta fever, epidemic 
meningitis, diphtheria, and hydrophobia. 

1. The evidence concerning Malta fever was published 
long ago by the Royal Commission, and I will gladly send to 
all applicants Sir David Bruce's account of his work. The 
use of goat's milk by our sailors and soldiers was officially 
prohibited on July 1, 1906. The ratios per thousand living 
are as follows : — 

Cases in Cases in Cases in 

Year Army. Navy. Civil Population. 

1905 77-5 18-8 3-2 

1906 24-2 11-9 4-0 

1907 1-9 1-3 3-4 

The Maltese suffer less frequently than our men did, because 
many of them had the fever in childhood, and are immune. 
But, in 1908, Dr. Eyre, in his Milroy lectures (Lancet, June, 
1908), said : " The fact remains that while we are congratu- 
lating ourselves on the removal of Malta fever from the Navy 
and from the Army, and, with Mr. Haldane, rejoicing in the 
saving to the nation of some 40,000 days' pay per annum, 
so far as regards the Army, the civil population of Malta, 
British and Maltese, are suffering as heavily as ever from the. 
ravages of the disease." And so late as December 26, 1908, 
the following statement was made in The Lancet : " The civil 
population continue to disregard Bruce's discovery, with 
the result that the disease among them is but little diminished, 
whereas among the men composing the garrison the malady 
has almost disappeared. During the twelve months ended 
March 31, 1908, there are notified in Malta 520 cases of this 
fever with 45 deaths. Of these 520 cases, only 11 occurred 



47 

among the British troops, and 7 in the Navy, with no deaths 
in either instance." About December, 1908, a civilian 
committee was appointed to instruct the native population, 
and in 1909 the native population were thus better protected 
from the fever. 

2. A recent account of the serum treatment of epidemic 
meningitis in various countries was given by Dr. Flexner 
at the sixtieth annual meeting of the American Medical Associa- 
tion (see the journal of the Association, October 30, 1909). He 
gives tables of 712 cases thus treated in America, Great Britain, 
and France. Among cases under two years the mortality 
was 42-3 per cent ; it had been, among children of this age, 
90 or more. Among cases from two to five years old, it was 
26' 7 per cent. ; among cases from five to ten it was 15' 9 ; 
among cases from ten to fifteen it was 27' 7 ; among cases 
from fifteen to twenty it was 32'7 ; among cases of twenty 
or over it was 39' 4. 

The New York Herald and Dr. Hadwen. from these figures, 
came to the conclusion that " Flexner has reduced the mortality 
of his cases, by a self-confessed method of statistical jugglery, 
from 90 to 15 per cent." 

As with diphtheria, so with epidemic meningitis, the serum 
treatment ought to be given early in the disease. Among 
180 cases of all ages treated during the first to third days of 
the disease the mortality was 25' 3 ; among 179 treated during 
the fourth to seventh days it was 27' 8 ; among 129 treated 
later than the seventh day it was 42*1. 

The cases at the Children's Hospital, Boston, though few, 
are interesting. For nine years, 1899-1907, the mortality 
was from 60 to 80 per cent. From November, 1907, to 
November, 1909, with the serum treatment, the mortality 
was 19 per cent. 

In Belfast the mortality was brought down from 72' 3 to 
29.6. Inside the hospital, with the serum, it was 26' 6 during 
the very epidemic in which, outside the hospital, without the 
serum, it was over 80. 

Nor is it only lives that are saved. The serum treatment 
shortens the time of the disease, lessens its agony, and checks 
its disastrous complications. 

3. Over diphtheria, Dr. Hadwen appeals to the Registrar- 
General : " Hast thou appealed unto Csesar ? Unto Caesar 
shalt thou go." The anti-toxin came into use in 1895. During 
1891-5 the death-rate from diphtheria per million persons 
living was 252. During 1896-1900 it was 272. During 
1901-5 it was 204. The " fatality " is not based on a 
" bacteriological diagnosis," nor is the treatment. The 
action of the germs was proved in the usual way, long ago ; 



48 

fchey were found in cases of the disease, were isolated, were 
grown in pure culture in test-tubes, and were found to reproduce 
the disease in animals. 

4. Over hydrophobia, Dr. Hadwen makes no attempt 
to meet this fact : that the mortality, with Pasteur's treat- 
ment, is less than 1 per cent., even in those cases where the 
madness of the animal was proved by the reproduction of 
the disease, from a particle of its bram or cord, in another 
animal. He prefers to support his figures on a " fool-born 
jest " made by one of his friends. 

He has told us, last week and this week, that Pasteur's 
theories have been disproved ; that Koch's postulates have 
broken down ; that diphtheria anti-toxin is useless ; that 
iodine is the active principle of the thyroid gland, and is 
valuable in cases of thyroid insufficiency ; that antiseptics 
have been abandoned for " simple cleanliness " ; that 
Bergmann laughed at antiseptics ; that the work of cancer 
research is a disgraceful business, a scandal, and a screaming 
farce ; that Pasteur's treatment is useless to prevent hydro- 
phobia ; that Dr. Flexner and Sir David Bruce are both 
wrong ; and so forth. Why does not Dr. Hadwen submit 
these opinions to the members of his profession ? Why 
did he not give evidence before the Royal Commission ? 
The reason alleged, by his society, was the refusal of the 
Royal Commission to throw open their meetings to the man 
in the street. But five other anti- vivisection societies sent 
Bio fewer than thirteen witnesses, to say nothing of witnesses 
sent by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to 
Animals, the Social Purity Alliance, and the Personal Rights 
Association. Why did not Dr. Hadwen tell the Commission 
what he has been telling us ? They would gladly have heard 
him, and would have published every word. Why did he 
not face that cross-examination ? It is so easy for him to be 
telling me that I evade, and slur over, and carefully avoid, 
and wriggle, and ignore, and am helpless, amusing, oblivious, 
random, airy, and sophistical. I don't mind ; for his talk 
is like that of Pasteur and of Lister. But why did he not 
go before the Royal Commission ? Again, he is fond of 
challenges. Why has he never taken up, nor ever will, the 
silent, constant, and final challenge of his profession against 
him ? That Malta fever is a " filth-disease " ; that canine 
digestion throws no light on human digestion ; that Flexner 
is guilty of self-confessed sophistical jugglery ; that Busch's 
observations on a patient wounded by a cow are " the only 
reliable ones " — here are four good subjects for a paper to 
be read before a medical society, or published in a medical 
journal. 



49 

tw The medical profession," lie says, " has never yet been 
unanimous, so far as I know, except when it has been 
unanimously wrong." It is a common saying with him. It 
is so far true, that his profession will certainly be unanimously 
wrong if it ever is unanimous with him. " We are told we 
must pay attention to what the experts tell us. My opinion 
is this : If there is one person in the whole of God's creation 
that wants looking after, it is the expert." That is another 
of his common sayings. It stands well : it makes one think 
of Paracelsus, Luther, Savonarola, Shelley, and other leaders 
of revolt against authority. Only, if a rebellion against 
science is to be successful, it must have on its side truth. 

That is just what the anti-vivisection societies have not 
got. They have money, influence, and much else that is 
worthy of respect on their side ; but for thirty years .they 
have not been telling the truth. " Time after time," said 
Mr. Stephen Coleridge himself, " has this sacred cause been 
undermined and betrayed by its professing friends by their 
reckless habit of making erroneous statements." And again : 
" There happen to be small anti -vivisection associations 
whose chief occupation is the dissemination of quite inaccurate 
pamphlets." He is right ; but I find nothing sacred in a 
cause founded and built on false witness against your neighbour. 
Now, at last, the anti-vivisection societies are beginning to 
see that they have been found out by thoughtful people. 
Therefore, they are appealing to those of us who have not 
had what is called a good education. " There is still," said 
Sir George Kekewich last July, at an anti-vivisection meeting, 
" missionary work to be done. We have to teach the people. 
Our chief hope is not in the idle rich, but in the workers." 
(See Morning Leader, July 8, 1909.) In plain English, the 
old instances, quotation, assertions, denunciations, revelations, 
and the like, are become stale, wearisome, incredible ; there- 
fore, let us take them where they may be able to have some 
air of novelty, some chance of a good hearing, in Hyde Park 
or Trafalgar-square. Quick ! before the Royal Commission 
publishes its report, let us stir up class hatred, and call it 
" touching the heart of the democracy." 

That is where the fight will be now. It will be hard work 
for the Research Defence Society. Still, I am hopeful, knowing 
that " the heart of the democracy " has more regard for truth 
than I find in the publications of the anti- vivisection societies , 
— I am, Sir, your obedient servant, 

Stephen Paget, 
Hon. Secretary Research Defence Society, 

70, Harley-street, London, W. 

[This correspondence must now cease. — Ed.] 



50 



A Reply by Dr. Hadwen. 

The editor of " The Standard " refused the insertion of a reply 
to the foregoing letter to which I felt I was justly entitled. I 
therefore take this opportunity of adding a few additional facts 
in reply to the evasive rejoinders made by Mr. Paget in his 
" Last Word." 

Malta Fever. 

1. Sir David Bruce' s Pamphlet. — This pamphlet, published 
by the Research Defence Society and offered to The Standard 
readers by Mr. Paget, has been fully answered by me in the 
August number of The Contemporary Review. It contains 
many inaccurate and reckless statements (especially in regard 
to the cargo boat story), which are surprising from a man in 
his responsible position. 

2. The Case for the Army. — It is true that the goat's milk, 
to which is attributed the origin of Malta Fever, was not 
prohibited to the troops until July 1, 1906. This fact was 
emphatically confirmed by Col. Bruce in cross-examination 
before the Royal Commission. But official statistics show 
that, whereas there were 643 cases of Malta Fever in 1905, 
they suddenly dropped to only 121 cases during the first 
six months of 1906, so that Malta Fever had practically 
died out before the goat's milk was prohibited. Mr. Paget's 
table is therefore misleading and disingenuous. He gives 
the total decrease for 1906 without showing that nearly the 
whole decline took place between January and July. The 
stopping of the consumption of goat's milk in July could not 
possibly have produced a result accomplished in the previous 
six months ! 

The decrease does, however, synchronise with the removal 
of the soldiers from the long ago condemned insanitary St. 
Elmo Barracks (from whence most of the cases of fever sprang) 
to healthy quarters in the new barracks on the hill-side. We 
may put it in tabular form thus :— 





Cases in 


Ratio 


No. of troops 


Year. 


Army. 


per 1,000. 


in St. Elmo. 


1904 


320 


351 


... ? 


1905 


643 


77-5 


665 


1906 


161 


242 


83 



When I inquired at the War Office for statistics as to the 
number of troops occupying St. Elmo for the last ten years, 



51 



Mr. Haldane informed me that they had no statistics prior to 
1905. An official at the barracks informed me, however, 
that they had two battalions there at that time, roughly 
2,000 men. During 1905, when these discreditable militarj' 
quarters were crowded with troops, the fever cases doubled, 
but when the soldiers were removed the bulk of the outbreak 
ceased. In 1906, when the barracks were occupied by only 
83 soldiers, the number of cases of Malta Fever in the whole 
of the Malta garrison, comprising 6,661 men, was only 161. 

3. The Case for the Navy. — The reduction of Malta Fever 
in the Navy was not a sudden one as Mr. Paget would lead 
his readers to suppose by his skilful selection of figures, but 
there has been a gradual reduction ever since the cleansing of 
the Grand Harbour — the cesspit of centuries — was commenced 
about twelve years ago. The decline from year to year in 
some previous years was much greater than in the recent 
years he gives, in spite of the free use of goat's milk by the 
sailors. Why does Mr. Paget avoid quoting my full table ? 
Here it is : — 



Attack rate of " Malta Fever " from 1897 to 1907 among the Navy, show- 


ing its gradual decline 


since the commencement 


of the cleansing of the 


Grand Harbour. 








Year. 


Cases. 


Ratio per 1,000. 


1897 




546 




45 


8 


1898 




359 




28 


31 


1899 




195 




14 


3 


1900 




317 




22 


24 


1901 




252 




17 


91 


1902 




354 




19 


16 


1903 




389 




18 


41 


1904 




333 




16 


99 


1905 




270 




18 


8 


1906 




145 




11 


95 


1907 




14 




1 


32 



Between 1897 and 1898 there was a drop of 187 cases, and 
the next year again a further fall of 164 cases, without any 
stoppage of goat's milk. No such fall can be shown since goat's 
milk was banned, but the number of cases show, with slight 
exacerbations, a steady decline for eleven years. 

This^isTstill more apparent when " Malta Fever " and 
" Simple Continued Fever " (which are one and the same thing) 
are taken together. " Mediterranean Fever," I may remark, 
receives a variety of names according to the whims of the 
attending medical practitioners. It appears to have been 
convenient since goat's milk has been altogether banned for 
the military and naval medical authorities to resort to the title 
of " Simple Continued Fever " alone. It is apparently con- 



52 

sidered an error in diagnosis to state chat a man who does 
not drink goat's milk is suffering from "Malta Fever." Dr. 
May, a public vaccinator of Birmingham, once confessed that 
in order to save vaccination from reproach he had certified 
cases as having died from Erysipelas, and had omitted the 
primary cause altogether. It is probably due to similar loyalty 
to a creed that certain officials in Germany have been led 
to call Small-pox by the name of " Eruptive Dermatitis." 
where the disease broke out in re vaccinated soldiers. 

If, then, we take " Malta Fever " and " Simple Continued 
Fever " together, we get a similar downward curve as when 
dealing with " Malta Fever " alone, only it comes out more 
dramatically. The most casual observer will realise by a 
glance at the Graphic Chart I have sketched below, that the 
decline began long before the goat's milk was stopped. 

Gradual Decline in "Mediterranean Fever" in the Navy from 1897 to 
1908, consequent on cleansing the Harbour of the deposit of centuries of 
sewage. Showing ratio of cases per 1,000 of the sailors per annum:— 




The above tablejshows how eminently misleading are the 
figures supplied by Mr. Paget. With the exception of two 
very slight exacerbations, the fever gradually declined from 
92-1 per 1,000 in 1897 to 11- 7 in 1907. The statistics manifest 
no sudden drop from 1906 to 1907, as Mr. Paget disingenuously 
wishes his readers to conclude. The question of goats' milk 
or no goats' milk is completely out of court. 

4. The Civil Population. — Mr. Paget and the goat theorists 
have been very uncomfortable since I pointed out that the 
civil population (which has incontinently laughed at the 
"scientific " Commissioners who banned goats' milk) has 



53 

throughout suffered infinitely less from " Mediterranean 
Fever " than the military and naval garrison. The General 
Medical Officer of Malta actually sought to confuse the issue 
by publishing in his annual report the number of cases among 
the Army and civil population respectively without taking 
into account the respective populations of each, which was 
most reprehensible in a Government medical official. 

Mr. Paget now seeks to evade the conclusion which must 
be apparent to any unbiassed person, namely, that the drinking 
of goats' milk bears no relation whatever to the disease, by 
saying, " The Maltese suffer less frequently than]our men did, 
because many of them had the fever in childhood and are im- 
mune." This is simply parroting Col. Bruce 's excuse ; but 
he goes on to quote from Dr. Eyre and The Lancet the some- 
what contradictory statement that " the civil population are 
suffering as heavily as ever," and, like the General Medical 
Officer of Malta, quotes the number of cases without giving the 
percentage to the population. This sort of thing 4 is not even 
honest ; it is seeking to lead the public to suppose that the goats' 
milk drinking population is being ravaged by disease, and that 
in the garrison the disease has been practically wiped out, 
whereas, the fact is, the garrison has been suffering throughout 
from ten to forty times more than the civil population ; the attack 
rate of the latter for the last twelve years has not averaged 
more than 4 per 1,000, and it is now only 2 per 1,000, though 
the population* drink goats' milk as before, and pay no atten- 
tion to the absurd warnings of the Malta Health Department. 
J have shown in my article in The Contemporary Review for 
August, 1909, that in proportion as " Malta^Fever " declined in 
the Army after goats' milk was banned, " Simple Continued 
Fever " rose. Taking, therefore, all cases, military, naval, 
and civil, and combining " Malta Fever" and " Simple Con- 
tinued Fever " undergone head as " Mediterranean Fever," we 
get the following result : — ' f ji \ 

Military. Xaval. \ Civil. 

Year. 



Ratio Ratio Ratio 

Cases, per 1,000. Cases, per 1,000. Cases, per 1,000. 



Average. 














1897 ) 

to r 

1905 ; 














1472 


180-0 


725 


49-5 


717 


41 














1907 


354 


583 


124 


11-7 


506 


23 



It will thus be seen that there has been a general reduction 
in "Mediterranean Fever" among mihtary, naval" and civil 
populations, which I attribute to the greatly improved sanitary 



54 

conditions on the island, in the soldiers' quarters, and in the 
Grand Harbour ; but the military attack rate is still twenty- 
nine times and the naval five times greater than the civil. But 
the fall in the Army as compared with the Navy is disappointing, 
for, instead of decreasing, the proportion has increased, showing 
that there is something radically wrong in the military en- 
vironments. 

But Mr. Paget says the civil population are more or less 
immune because they have Malta fever in childhood. If this 
be the case, seeing that there are more children born in Malta 
every year than the whole strength of the military garrison 
stationed on the island, there ought to be thousands annually 
suffering from Malta fever in order to confer the immunity he 
claims. And pray, where is the evidence of this ? There is not 
a statistical table in existence to justify the reckless and im- 
pudent assertion of the hon. secretary of the Research Defence 
Society. Indeed, the evidence goes all the other way, for half 
the cases of Malta fever among the civil population have 
occurred in persons of over thirty years of age. 

Diphtheria. 

Mr. Paget does not appear to be able to deal straightfor- 
wardly with any subject he touches. I stated that the death- 
rate from diphtheria, according to the Registrar-General's 
Returns, was greater since the introduction of antitoxin than 
before. The fact is that for the ten years prior to its intro- 
duction the average death-rate per million living was 200, 
whereas in the subsequent ten years it rose to 235. 

Mr. Paget does not actually deny this, but he proposes to go 
to the Registrar-General to show that my statement is false. 
And what does he do ? He quotes three five-year periods, viz., 
1891-5, 1896-1900, and 1901-5. Now, antitoxin was intro- 
duced into this country in 1894. So that he gives one quin- 
quennium in the midst of which antitoxin came into use, and 
adds the two succeeding quinquennia. In short, he provides no 
quinquennium prior to the introduction of the treatment at all, 
and because there is a slight reduction in the last quinquennium 
over the previous one he claims this reduction as an answer 
to my evidence ! One of two things is apparent — either Mr. 
Paget is grossly ignorant of elementary statistics, or else he is 
deliberately dishonest. There are the facts, and he can impale 
himself on whichever horn of the dilemma he pleases. 

Now, since he has chosen five-year periods, let us examine 
the statistics accordingly. I have drawn up a graphic table of 
quinquennia for the last thirty-five years from the latest 
Annual Report of the Registrar-General, showing the 



55 

annual death-rates before and since the introduction of 
antitoxin : — 

Statistics from Registrar-General's Report, 1908. 

The annual death-rate per million persons living from Diphtheria in 
successive quinquennia, 1871-1905, in England and Wales : — ■ 



300 

ZOO 

100 


















<-B 


























*• -5 c ' 




















































'272-4 

VSMSM 














































WW,. 






















252-61 




WW, 






















WW/. 




WW 






















WW, 




f/M 






















WW/ 




WW/, 






















ww. 




WW/ 




-204-2 


















WW/, 




■ww 




tiiV/J, 


















wm 




WW. 




WW 


















ww 




■ww 




'WW 














169-6. 




ww, 




wA 




W/A 










■I56-Z- 




'VV7//, 




w///, 




WW/A 




WW/, 












V///M 




%%%%■ 




■ww. 




////// 










H| 




WW 




W//A 




■ww. 




WW/ 










W///A 




WW, 




WW, 




WW. 




WW/ 


120-8 




r/2f- 8" 








WW, 




WW, 




■ww. 




WW/ 


mm. 




WM 








WW 




V///A 




'WW. 




WW/ 


WW, 




'ww, 




ww 




y///A 




VWW, 




■wwA 




WW/ 


YEARS 













1871- 7 1 


> 


1876-8 





88l-8i 




1886-9 


89I-9L 


» 1896-900 


I90l-05 s 



The truth of my statement, that the death-rate from diph- 
theria has been greater since the introduction of antitoxin than 
before, can be seen at a glance. Not only was the quinquennium 
which followed the introduction of antitoxin the very highest on 
record, but the last quinquennium of all, 1901-5, although a 
little less than that of 1896-1900, is, nevertheless, considerably 
higher than any quinquennium which preceded the introduction 
of the treatment. And, more than this, judging by the annual 
returns since, it is clear that the next quinquennium of 1906-10, 
when published, will show a still abnormal death-rate far in 
excess of the pre-antitoxin period. In view of these unanswer- 
able facts, what is the use of Mr. Paget writing such nonsense 
as : 

The action of the germs was proved in the usual way long ago ; they were 
found in cases of the disease, were isolated, were grown in pure culture in 
test-tubes, and were found to produce the disease in animals. 

The question is — What good is it ? And what is the use of 
finding germs and cultivating them and choking animals' 
blood-vessels with them, when unimpeachable statistical 
evidence proves conclusively that it would have been wiser 
to have cast them into the sewers than to have injected them 
into human^bodies ? 



56 

Cerebro-Spinal Meningitis. 

^ Mr. Paget makes no attempt whatever to meet the damning 
statement I have quoted from Flexner's own report, to the 
effect that his serum was used upon selected cases, and that he 
eliminated all cases which succumbed within twenty-four hours 
of the treatment. He now attempts to mislead the public by 
coolly quoting a number of statistics from the same vitiated 
source without any apology or attempted justification for so 
doing. As in the use of diphtheria antitoxin so here, emphasis 
is laid upon the necessity of using the serum on the first days. 
And all the old shuffles of first, second, third, fourth days, and 
so on, with increasing death-rates, are resorted to. Every 
physician knows that nothing is more difficult than the correct 
diagnosis of cerebro-spinal meningitis in its early stages, and it 
is self-evident that if the serum is used in so early a stage of the 
disease, the probability is, as is the case with " bacteriological 
diphtheria," that they are no more dealing with cerebro-spinal 
meningitis in the one case than with genuine diphtheria in the 
other. Hence the conclusions are fallacious and the statistics 
fictitious. 

The serum itself appears to be a horrible imitation of Pas- 
teur's remedy for hydrophobia. The spinal marrow of children 
who have died from the disease has been ground up and in- 
jected into monkeys until they died in convulsions and para- 
lysis, and then the usual filthy routine of the scientific witches' 
cauldron is pursued until the serum is " perfected." Pasteur 
backed up his hydrophobic serum with marvellous statistics of 
a similar nature to those of Flexner. We know that in the 
former case they were a complete fraud. The medical pro- 
fession of this country, with all its trust in authority, has never 
yet adopted Pasteurism in relation to hydrophobia, and it 
strikes me that, in spite of all Mr. Paget's efforts to advertise 
the craze of the Rockefeller Institute, it will be a long time 
before Flexner's serum is recognised by the medical profession 
of this country. So far it has not a single scientific leg to stand 
upon. 

Hydrophobia. 

Mr. Paget begins this subject by saying : 

Dr. Hadwen makes no attempt to meet this fact : that the mortality Math 
Pasteur's treatment is less than 1 per cent. 

This is the first time Mr. Paget has placed this " fact " before 
me, therefore I fail to see how I can be justly charged with 
avoiding it. I will " meet " it now with pleasure, and thus set 
Mr. 1 Paget an example which he is loth to follow in any single 
instance. I have shown him that hydrophobia has increased 



since the Pasteur Institute began its work, and that there are 
over two thousand cases on record of persons who have died 
from hydrophobia after having been " cured " by Pasteur's 
treatment, but Mr. Paget " makes no attempt to meet those 
facts " ! 

Mr. Paget implies, I presume, that Pasteur's mortality of 
1 per cent, from rabies is less than at any time previous. At 
least, that is what I conclude from his article on ' Rabies ' in 
his extraordinary work called " Experiments on Animals." 
With his strangely careless and absolutely irresponsible method 
of dealing with scientific matters, Mr. Paget says (page 142, 
third edition) : 

" What was the risk from the bite of a rabid animal in the days before 1885? 
It is a matter of guess-work. One writer, and one only, guessed it at 5 per 
cent. ; another guessed it at 55 ; a third came to the safe conclusion 
that it was somewhere between these limits. Pasteur put it between 15 and 
20. But " suppose " says Mr. Paget, with delightful innocence, 
" suppose it were only 10 ; that, before Pasteur, out of every 100 
men bitten by rabid animals 90 would escape and only 10 would die of hydro- 
phobia ; then take this fact," that at the Pasteur Institute there ■ is " a 
mortality not of 10 per cent., but of less than 1 per cent." 

Now let me ask Mr. Paget, seeing that all the figures of 
hydrophobia before 1885 were, according to himself, only 
" guess-work," might we not suppose that the mortality, 
instead of being 10 per cent, at that time, was not more than 
1 per cent. ? Surely this will settle the whole difficulty ! We 
may just as well " suppose " one figure as the other. What a 
delightful way of manufacturing statistics, by " guessing " and 
" supposing " ! Surely the Research Defence Society has need 
to be proud of its hon. secretary ! I am bound to helplessly 
confess that he has at last supplied me with a " fact " I cannot 
meet, as " guessing " and " supposing " are quite out of my 
line. Mr. Paget evidently looks upon "guesswork" and 
"supposing" as synonymous with " modern science," and I 
have no reason to dispute his conclusion. 

I am afraid I cannot follow Mr. Stephen Paget along the 
remaining half-column of his hysterical attack upon me and 
others, by which he hopes, apparently, to cover his retreat 
from an untenable position, but as in the course of it he is guilty 
of a reckless untruth which affects the bona fides of my Society, 
I will append the reply thereto which was promptly sent by 
Miss Beatrice Kidd to the Editor of The Standard and refused 
insertion. 

Walter R. Hadwen. 



58 



The Vivisection Commission. 



To the Editor of The Standard. 

Sir, — I recognise that the correspondence between Dr. 
Hadwen and Mr. Stephen Paget has been closed in your 
columns, but I trust you will allow me to correct an error 
on Mr. Paget's part concerning the Society of which I am the 
secretary. He asks why Dr. Hadwen did not give evidence 
before the Royal Commission, and then himself supplies an 
erroneous answer in the following words : " The reason alleged 
by his Society was the refusal of the Royal Commission 
to throw open their meetings to the man in the street." 

This is not the case, as can be proved by a volume of con- 
temporary evidence. Mr. Paget has evidently confused the 
British Union with some other Society. Our organ, The 
Abolitionist, of December, 1906, discussed fully the attitude 
of the chief Anti- Vivisection Societies towards the Com- 
mission, and reproduced a letter from The Morning Leader 
in which Dr. Hadwen wrote that the British Union had 
" demanded neither admission of the press nor representa- 
tion by counsel as a condition of their participation in the 
inquiry " ; still less had we demanded the admission of the 
" man in the street." 

The sole reason why the British Union ignored the Com- 
mission was that while licensed vivisectors had been placed 
upon it, the Home Secretary refused to allow us a direct medical 
representative with a view to cross-examining the vivisectors 
on the medical points upon which the inquiry mainly turned 
and which we regarded as an absolute necessity for a fair and 
complete examination of the question and a guarantee for 
the equal treatment of witnesses. — I am, Sir, Your obedient 
servant, Beatrice E. Kidd. 

Secretary, British Union for Abolition of Vivisection, 
32, Charing Cross, S.W., February 11, 1910. 



British Union for Abolition of Vivisection. 

Hon. Secretary : Dr. WALTER R. HADWEN, J.P. 

Hon. Treasurer : Rev. J. STRATTON, M.A. 

Chairman of Committee : Rev. R. D. MONRO, M.A. 

Hon. Solicitor : Organiser : 

E. HEYS JONES, Esq. NURSE CROSS. 

Offices : 32, Charing Cross, London. 



59 



Dr. Hadwen and His Critics. 



The following letters constituted a subsidiary correspondence, 
under the above heading, relative to particular points and 
persons referred to in the main controversy : — 

To the Editor of " The Standard." 

Sir, — The words quoted by Dr. Hadwen from The Lancet 
occur in a leading article entitled " Bacteriology Tested by 
Epidemiology," published on March 20, 1909. They have 
before now been dislocated from their context and used as 
evidence of the scepticism of The Lancet as to the value of the 
germ theory. The article from which the words are quoted 
was a speculative inquiry as to how far, while our knowledge 
of epidemiology rapidly increases, all new developments 
could be explained by Koch's postulates, and the general 
conclusion arrived at was that, with slight modifications, 
Koch's postulates hold good, speaking generally. 

I am, Sir, your obedient servant, 

The Editor op The Lancet. 

Lancet Office, 423, Strand. 



To the Editor of " The Standard." 

Sir, — My attention has been called to Dr. Hadwen's use 
of a paragraph in my presidential address to the Medical 
Society of London last October. 

The paragraph quoted proves the exact opposite of what 
he wishes it to prove. It is quite true that Hughlings Jackson 
was the great pioneer upon whose observations at the bedside 
and in the post-mortem room our present knowledge of the 
localisation of function in the brain is based. But it could 
not be considered established or accepted as scientifically 
proved until it had received the confirmation and extension 
of experimental work upon animals in the physiological 
laboratory. 

The whole object of my address was to show the necessary 
dependence, the one upon the other, of bedside observation 
and physiological experiment. 

I am, Sir, your obedient servant, 

Samuel West, M.D., F.R.C.P. 

15, Wimpole Street, W. 



60 

To the Editor of "The Standard." 

Sir, — I am rather surprised to read the communications 
of the editor of The Lancet and of Dr. West. I have no desire 
to misrepresent either of them, nor do I admit that I have done 
so. Their expressed opinions were interesting, although not 
essential to my case, and, indeed, their present letters leave my 
position unshaken. 

I would suggest that your readers peruse for themselves 
the leading article of the Editor of The Lancet in its com- 
pleteness, as it appeared in the issue of March 20, 1909. It was 
founded on a paper read by Dr. Harmer before the Patho- 
logical Section of the Royal Society of Medicine — a paper 
which embraced much that I have been drawing attention to 
for some years past. I will, with your permission, quote one 
passage from the editor's pen, which renders his attitude some- 
what enigmatical, especially as he makes no attempt to show 
where the " slight modifications of Koch's postulates " are to 
come in : — 

It is not at all rare to fail to find the causal organism in an individual 
case of the disease, and the explanation usually given is that the search has 
not been as yet sufficiently thorough. Again, many organisms which are 
considered to be causal, are frequently to be found in healthy persons. The 
organisms of enteric fever, of cholera, and of diphtheria may be cited as examples 
of this, and to explain these facts we have to invoke the idea of healthy 
" carriers " of disease. When a causal organism is injected into an animal, 
often it happens that it gives rise to a disease bearing no clinical resemblance 
to the original malady. When the pneumo-coccus, isolated from a typical 
case of pneumonia, is injected into an animal such as a rabbit, it will produce, 
not a pneumonia, but a general septicaemia, and this even if the injection is 
made into the lung itself. Thus we cannot ~ely upon Koch's postulates 
as a decisive test of a causal organism. 

I trust that the editor of The Lancet, in the face of his own 
words, will not again charge me with having " dislocated " 
the concluding statement from its context. 

Dr. West's position is equally inexplicable. In my letter 
of January 31, I quoted Mr. Paget's precise words : " All 
present knowledge of the localisation of the functions of the 
brain " is built up upon animal experiments. I stated, in reply, 
that this was " contrary to historical fact," and I quoted Dr. 
West. The latter now says : — 

It is quite true that Hughlings Jackson was the great pioneer upon whos e 
observations at the bedside and in the post mortem room, our present knowledge 
of the localisation of the functions of the brain is based. 

This was all that I contended for. I quoted Dr. West in 
full, and without further comment. He now adds : — 

But it could not be considered established or accepted as scientifically 
proved until it had received the confirmation and extension of experimental 
work upo nimals in the physiological laboratory. ; 



61 

1 candidly quoted Dr. West in my article as to his statement 
of localisation being " confirmed and extended in the labora- 
tory " : but this was not the point I was discussing. Confirm- 
ing and extending are not the same thing as discovery of a 
fact, and if Dr. West's words mean anything at all, they 
completely justify the position I have assumed, namely, 
that animal experiments, even if useful, were not vital. This 
is evident from the further statement of Dr. West in his presi- 
dential address : — 

Though laboratory experiments have done so much to confirm this work, 
still they are coarse and clumsy compared with those experiments which 
Nature performs in disease. 

But I differ from Dr. West as to the value of the so-called 
confirmatory evidence of the laboratory. The greatest brain 
surgeon who ever lived, Professor Charcot, has pointed out 
in his " Lecons sur les Localisations dans les Maladies 
Cerebrales " : — 

That the utmost that can be learned from experiment on the brains of 
animals is the [topography of the animal brain, and that it must still remain 
for the science^of human anatomy and clinical investigation to enlighten 
us in regard to the far more complex and highly differentiated nervous organ- 
isation of our own species, and in fact it is in the department of clinical and 
post mortem study that so far all our best data for brain localisation have 
been secured. 

How, for instance, could the speech centre have been 
" confirmed " in the laboratory ? The brain experiments 
on animals have been, in my opinion, among the most cruel, 
unnecessary and misleading of all vivisectional practices. — 
T am, Sir, your obedient servant, 

Walter R. Had wen, M.D., 
Hon. Sec, British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, 
32, Charing-cross, S.W. 



To the Editor of The Standard. 

Sir, — The leading article from which Dr. Hadwen again 
quotes a piece dislocated from its context was not founded 
upon any work by Dr. Harmer, though the opinion of that 
admirable biologist upon the whole subject would be very 
interesting. The author of the paper read before the 
Pathological Section of the Royal Society of Medicine was 
Dr. W. H. Hamer. The first paragraph of the article states 
that the bacterial theory of infectious disease has not been 
upset, while it welcomes Dr. Hamer's criticism of it. The 
second paragraph, from which Dr. Hadwen quotes, sets out 
certain points for which the theory does not account fully. 
The third paragraph offers solutions of difficulties which have 



62 

been honestly recognised. I have not accused Dr. Hadwen 
of misquoting The Lancet, but I consider that he is using 
portions of the article in question in an unfair manner. — I 
am, Sir, your obedient servant, 

The Editor of The Lancet. 
London, W.C. 

To the Editor of The Standard. 

Sir, — I notice in your paper a statement by Dr. Hadwen 
which is a gross misrepresentation of the facts regarding 
cancer as observed in the mouse. A mouse " with cancer 
three times his body-weight, with no deposits in the lymph 
glands, no secondary deposits, and the whole thing spontaneously 
disappearing," is a phenomenon which exists only in Dr. 
Hadwen's perverted imagination. All his assertions with 
regard to cancer in animals betray an utter ignorance of the 
facts of the subject. — I am, Sir, your obedient servant, 

E. F. Bashford, 
Director Imperial Cancer Research Fund. 



To the- Editor of The Standard. 

Sir, — I do not admit that I have been in the least degree 
"unfair" to the Editor of The Lancet. I have, in an article 
elsewhere, rejoiced that light — if ever so dimly — has broken 
in upon the editorial chair, and I have prayed in Goethe's 
last words that " more light " might yet shine in that direction ! 
I do not expect that the editor of an orthodox journal like 
that of The Lancet, who admits in the opening of his leading 
article, from which I quoted, that " the bacterial theory of 
infectious diseases has been unchallenged for many years," 
would accept too hastily the crushing exposures of its fallacy 
which have been recently brought to light. I admire the 
editor for his candour so far, and I have no wish, nor have I 
attempted, to go further than his own words justify. Those 
words I have accurately quoted — viz. : " It must be acknow- 
ledged that all these postulates are complied with very rarely 
indeed, if ever. . . . Thus we cannot rely on Koch's 
postulates as a decisive test of a causal organism." As to 
the hope of reinstating " Humpty-Dumpty " and the offer 
of " solutions of difficulties " — well, I think, the editor will 
candidly admit that the " difficulties " are not yet solved, 
nor are they likely to be solved upon the line of Koch's postu- 
lates and the germ theory. 

I am obliged to Dr. Bashford for his gratuitous public 
testimonial to my " gross misrepresentation," " utter 



63 

ignorance," and " perverted imagination." The charges 
may be all quite true, but they are not evidence. It is a 
pity that the " director of the Imperial Cancer Research 
Fund," in view of the fact that his statements had been 
seriously questioned by witnesses, did not submit himself 
to examination and cross-examination before the Royal 
Commission on Vivisection ; by doing so he would have put 
himself in a better position for indulging in this curious display 
of fireworks. 

Without going any further, I beg to refer Dr. Bashford to 
his own official reports, in which he speaks of " the presence 
of a tumour even of greater weight than the mouse itself," 
many of which underwent spontaneous cure. From his own 
pen, under the misleading title of " Transplantation of 
Malignant New Growths," he admits the absence of deposits 
in lymph glands and the rarity of secondary deposits. And 
I may add that no less an authority than the President of the 
Royal College of Surgeons narrated to the Royal Commission, 
as one of the great discoveries made by Dr. Bashford and 
his colleagues in their experiments with mice " that cancer 
can, and does, not so very infrequently, disappear spon- 
taneously " ! How strange this had never been found out 
before in human beings ! 

Now I will transfer the responsibility from Mr. Paget 's 
to Dr. Bashford's shoulders, since the latter has come to the 
rescue of the former, and when he can find me a case of human 
cancer answering to these peculiarities I shall be happy to 
investigate it. But in tormenting hundreds of thousands of 
mice and transplanting a mouse tumour through endless 
generations, year after year, in the name of " science," without 
ever having gleaned, and without the remotest chance of 
ever gleaning, a solitary useful fact concerning the human 
malady from such an extraordinary occupation, is, in my 
opinion, little else than " playing the fool " with an anxious 
and philanthropic public. — I am, Sir, your obedient servant, 

Walter R. Hadwen, M.D., 
Hon. Secretary, British Union for Abolition of Vivisection. 

32, Charing Cross, London, S.W. 



To the Editor of The Standard. 
Sir,— Dr. Hadwen wrote in Friday's Standard : — 

14. When Mr. Paget ean find a human being with a " cancer " three times 
his body weight, with no deposits in the lymph glands, no secondary deposits, 
and the whole thing spontaneously disappearing, I will accept his extraordinary 
assertion that " mouse cancer is real cancer." Until then I beg to take it 
Qiim rjrano salts. < -~> '<- ^-- - -- 



64 

Charged with misrepresentation, he is unable to substantiate 
his statement ; instead, he quotes from the Second Scientific 
Report of the Imperial Cancer Research Fund the words : 
" The presence of a tumour even of greater weight than the 
mouse itself," and adds, " many of which underwent spon- 
taneous cure," as if those words formed part of the original 
context, which they do not. Dr. Hadwen, however, departs 
from his original statement ; it is no longer a tumour three 
times the body weight, but only a tumour even of greater 
weight than the mouse itself. Such large tumours do not 
disappear, in my experience, and so far as I am aware, have 
never been described as disappearing in any other laboratory, 
or by any other investigator. In addition to my original 
charge of misrepresentation, I now charge Dr. Hadwen with 
the more deliberate misrepresentation of stating, out of his 
own head, that disappearanie occurs under these circumstances, 
and of naming me as the source of his information. — I am, Sir, 
your obedient servant, 

E. F. Bashford, 
Director, Imperial Cancer Research Fund. 



To the Editor of The Standard. 

Sir, — Dr. Bashford, like Mr. Stephen Paget, and every other 
vivisector I have had to deal with in controversy, tries to evade 
a plain issue when he finds himself fixed in a corner. 

I am quite prepared to provide evidence that the mouse 
tumour such as Dr. Bashford and his friends have been playing 
with for the last seven years reaches " sometimes three times 
the body weight of the animal." He says I " depart from my 
original statement." I do no such thing ; I absolutely adhere 
to it. 

Mr. Paget declined to face my twice-repeated challenge, and 
upon Dr. Bashford rushing in to help him out of his difficulty, 
I promptly took the Director of the Imperial Cancer Research 
Fund upon his own ground. I now ask him to stay there and 
defend it, instead of indulging in farther hot-headed charges of 
" deliberate misrepresentation," etc. 

He has himself admitted " the presence of a tumour even of 
greater weight than the mouse itself." This is quite enough for 
my case for the present. He says " such large tumours, in his 
experience, do not disappear," and states that I " added the 
words, ' many of which underwent spontaneous cure,' as if 
those words formed part of the original context." I did no such 
thing, as your readers can see for themselves. I only placed his 
statement as to the size of the tumour within quotation marks. 



65 

I frankly admit, however, that my mode of expression might 
erroneously convey the idea that the very large tumours spon- 
taneously disappeared, which would scarcely be possible 
within the lifetime of the animal, although as the smaller ones 
disappear, there is no reason why the larger should not in time 
share the same fate. 

Dr. Bashford also avoids all reference to lymph glands and 
secondary deposits. Now my object is to face Dr. Bashford 
with his own official reports, and I again ask him to find me : — 

1. A human cancer " of greater weight " than the human 
being who carries it. 

2. A human cancer that " spontaneously disappears." 

3. A human cancer (except, of course, in the very earliest 
stages, when diagnosis is practically impossible) where lymph 
glands are unaffected and metastases absent. 

This he makes no attempt to do. — I am, Sir, your obedienu 
servant, 

Walter R. Hadwen, M.D. 
Hon. Sec. British Union for Abolition of Vivisection. 
32, Charing Cross, London, S.W. 

[The first three paragraphs of the above letter were deleted 
by the Editor.] 



To the Editor of The Standard. 

Sir, — Dr. Hadwen has confessed as fully as could be expected 
that a mouse " with a cancer three times his body -weight, 
with no deposits in the lymph glands, no secondary deposits, 
and the whole thing spontaneously disappearing," is a figment 
of his imagination. Two later misrepresentations have been 
brought home to him : first, the insinuation that tumours, 
even of greater weight than a mouse, underwent spontaneous 
cure in contrast with what occurs in man ; and second, with 
naming me as if I were the source of his information. It 
has been established that, relying upon the ignorance of his 
readers, Dr. Hadwen has resorted to misrepresentation in 
order to attack persons whose views on animal experiments 
differ from his own. ? i 

In The Standard Dr. Hadwen states : " Dr. Bashford 
avoids all reference to lymph glands and secondary deposits." 
Again misrepresentation, by innuendo if not de facto ! Why 
should I refer to them ? I entered this discussion in the 
interests of truthful representation of certain well-known 
facts, and have accomplished my object. I have no doubt 
that with sufficient waste of ink and paper I could extract 
from Dr. Hadwen a confession that he had also been guilty 
of other misrepresentations owing to his ignorance of the 



frequency with which secondary growths (metastases) do 
occur in the lymph glands, lungs, liver, kidney, intestines, &c, 
of mice with cancer. 

That spontaneous healing of cancer occurs under given 
circumstances — not those imagined by Dr. Hadwen in mice 
with cancer — is a fact which has done more than any other 
to remove doubts as to statements of its occurrence in man. 
Experiment has demonstrated its occurrence in animals, 
and made it possible to alter its frequency. In the elucidation 
of the process lies the hope of helping the human patient. 

I shall not discuss cancer with Dr. Hadwen in the columns 
of The Standard or anywhere else, but, if need be, I shall 
enlighten his readers as to his ignorance, and herewith I 
conclude my share in this correspondence. — I am, Sir, your 
obedient servant, 

E. F. Bashford, 
Director Imperial Cancer Research Fund. 



[The following letter in reply to the above was refused pub- 
lication by the Editor of The Standard.] 

To the Editor of The Standard. 

Sir, — Dr. Bashford's language increases in vehemence as he 
goes along, and if ever the old legal dictum of " No case, abuse 
plaintiff's attorney " were appropriate, it is specially so in the 
present instance. 

Your correspondent declares that I have " confessed as 
fully as could be expected " that my statements regarding 
the mouse tumour, which he has been playing with for several 
years past, are " a figment of my imagination." He says " two 
later misrepresentations have been brought home to me " ; 
and further states that " relying upon the ignorance of my 
readers, I have resorted to misrepresentation in order to attack 
persons whose views differ from my own," etc., etc. 

Let me say at once, I have not " confessed " to a single 
erroneous statement, nor has Dr. Bashford yet demonstrated 
that I have made one. I stand by every word that I have pub- 
lished in the columns of The Standard. I withdraw nothing. 

I repeat, when Dr. Bashford rushed to the rescue of Mr. 
Stephen Paget (who had evaded my reiterated challenge), I 
promptly took him upon his own ground, and faced him with 
his own official reports. Instead of straightforwardly justifying 
his position, he has indulged in extravagant rhetoric and crude 
personalities. He declines to meet the plain issue I have laid 



67 

down for him, and seeks instead to escape it by puerile re- 
criminations. 

He says he " entered this discussion in the interests of 
truthful representation of certain well-known facts, and has 
accomplished his object." I leave your readers to judge of his 
claim for themselves. If reckless assertion and violence of 
language constitute " fact," he has certainly achieved success, 
but — the three points of my last letter which I asked him to 
meet remain unanswered ! He may natter himself that " in 
the elucidation of the process lies the hope of helping the human 
patient," but if the worrying of hundreds of thousands of mice 
and other animals by the repeated propagation of a tumour 
which bears no relation to human cancer during a perod of six 
or seven years has achieved nothing more than the discovery 
that the best treatment consists of early operation, I am afraid 
" the hope " is as illusory as " the process." 

Dr. Bashford concludes : "I shall not discuss cancer with 
Dr. Hadwen in the columns of The Standard or anywhere else, 
but, if need be, I shall enlighten his readers as to his ignorance." 
Your readers are not likely to be misled either by his failure to 
substantiate his absurd position or by his impertinence. — I am, 
Sir, your obedient servant, 

Walter R. Hadwen, M.D., 
Hon. Sec. of British Union for Abolition of Vivisection. 

32, Charing Cross, London, S.W.. 
llth February, 1910. 



Zhe Contemporary IRepiew 

(August October and November, 1909) 
CONTAINS 

THE COMPLETE CONTROVERSY ON 
MALTA FEVER & GOAT'S MILK. 

N.B. — Those who wish to know how Vivisectionist claims are 
manufactured should read this important revelation. 



Apply for the above volumes to 

The Secretary, 
British Union for Abolition of Vivisection, 

32, Charing Cross, London, S.W., 

Sending- is. 4d. in stamps or P.O. 



68 



Mouse Tumour. 



These reproductions are copied from the Third Report of the Investi- 
gations of the Imperial Cancer Research Fund, and present views of the 
same mouse suffering from " spontaneous mammary carcinoma," taken 
from the right and left sides. 





W. SPEAIGHT & SONS, PRINTERS, FETTER LANE, LONDON, E.C 



The British Union 
for the Abolition of Vivisection. 

Fottndbess: FRANCES POWER COBBE. 

Hon. Sec. : Hon. Treasurer : 

WAITER R. HADWEN.M.D., etc., J.P. The Rev. J. STRATTON, M.A. 

Secretary : Miss B. E. KJDD. 
fleet: 32, Chasing Cboss, London, S.W. 






From the Autobiography of Miss F. P. COBBE . 

** To those of my readers who may desire to contribute to 
the Anti-Vivisection Cause, and who have shared my views on it 
as set forth in my numberless pamphlets and letters, and to 
those specially who, like myself, intend to bequeath money to 
carry on the war against scientific cruelty, 1 now earnestly say 
as my final counsel : 

"Support the British Union." 



In the case of benefactors desiring to bequeath legacies in 
support of the Cause, they are respectfully urged to clearly 
state in their Wills, M The British Union for the Abolition of 
Vivisection," and to make them payable to the Treasurer for 
the time being. 



Form of Bequest, 



To those who may be inclined to become Benefactors by Will to this 
Society, the following form is respectfully suggested : — 

I bequeath unto the Society called The British Union fob the Abolition 

of Vivisection, the sum of free of Legacy Duty, 

and I direct that the same shall be paid to the Treasurer for the timcbeing of such last- 
mentioned Society, exclusively out of such part of my personal estate as may legally 
be bequeathed for charitable purposes, and in priority to all other payments. 



By virtue of the Act of Victoria, cap. 26, all Wills and Codicils must be in 
writing, signed by the Testator, and attested by two witnesses in the presence of 
the Testator and of each other. 



A Donation of Five Pounds and upwards constitutes a Life Member. 
An Annual Subscription of Ten Shillings constitutes an Annual Member. 
Remittances by Crossed Cheque or Postal Order. Smaller Donations gratefully 
accepted. 

An Annual Payment of 2s. 6d. constitutes an Associate of the Union. 



SELECTED ANTI-VIVISECTION 
LITERATURE. 



Pamphlets by Dr. HAD WEN, J. P. 

Some Recent Vivisection Practices in do* 100. 

English Laboratories . . .1/- 7/6 
A Medical View of the Vivisection 

Question 2/- 12/6 

Vivisection : its Follies and Cruelties 

and the Way to Fight it . , 1/- 7/6 

The Antitoxin Treatment of Diphtheria 1/6 10/- 

Vivisection at the Brown Institution £d. 2/3 
The Cult of the Vivisector . . . £d. 2/3 

The Humour of the Vivisector . . 6d. 2/6 

Tuberculosis and Cow's Milk . .1/- 7/6 

Was Jenner a Charlatan? . . .1/- 7/6 
Debate between Dr. Hadwen and Mr. 

Stephen Paget . .1/6 10/- 

Debate between Dr. Hadwen and Dr. 

Eastham 1/- 7/6 

Correspondence between Dr. Hadwen 

and Sir Victor Horsley . .1/- 7/6 
Views of Men and Women of Note on 

the Vivisection Question. . . 2/- 12/6 

(Illustrated with Portraits.) 

The Case against Vaccination . . 1/- 7/6 
The Controversy in " The Standard". 2/6 15/- 

By Miss FRANCES POWER COBBE. 

The Early History of the An ti- Vivisection Movement. 3d. 
Light in Dark Places. Gratis. 



By BEATRICE E. KIDD. 

Why We Object to a Restriction Bill. 9d. doz., 5/- 100, 
Anti-Vivisection Politics. 4d. per doz., 2/3 per 100. 
Do You Know? (Illustrated). 4d. per doz., 2/3 per 100. 
The Inspector's Returns for 1908. 3d. per doz., 2/- 100. 
The Policy of Abolition. 1/. per doz., 7/6 per 100. 

By Miss A. F, WH1TELEY. 

Some Medical Views of Vivisection. 3d. each, 2/- doz. 



'!'»• >M. Historical .~.oi i Rc-yir»N